Dog loses leg in hit-and-run crash

Dorset Echo: Fiona Adams and Carys Adams-Perry with recovering Cookie Fiona Adams and Carys Adams-Perry with recovering Cookie

A WEYMOUTH family has hit out at a driver who failed to stop after striking down their beloved pet dog.

Two-year-old chocolate cocker spaniel Cookie lost her leg in the distressing incident near Radipole Park Gardens last week.

Fiona Adams, owner of Waffle On, and her two youngest children Rufus, four, and Carys, aged seven, are urging motorists to take ‘responsibility’ for their actions.

The law states that the driver of a car involved in a collision with a dog is obliged to stop and stay on the scene until the police have given them permission to leave.

Little Cookie was forced to have her leg amputated by vets due to the broken bones that were caused by the incident.

Ms Adams said: “Cookie could have been killed – and all we wanted was for this driver to pull over and take responsibility.

“She has lost her leg and is currently at home recovering.

“It is the law that the driver should have stopped.

“Luckily, Cookie is okay but it is unbelievable how some people don’t take responsibility or even to stop and see if she is okay.”

The Trinity Street business owner was walking Cookie and her two other dogs Poppy and Cookie’s mum Biscuit at Radipole Park Gardens when the youngest dog disappeared into nearby shrubbery.

She added: “The bushes separate the gardens from the busy road so I called Cookie to come back.

“The next thing I heard was a massive scream and a loud thud.

“It was really horrible. Cookie was screaming and she came hobbling back to me holding one leg up. The driver just drove off.”

The Weymouth family thanked the three elderly strangers who helped Ms Adams get injured Cookie, Biscuit and Poppy back to the car.

Ms Adams said she alerted Dorset Police to the incident.

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:15am Wed 26 Mar 14

unexpected error says...

I am very sorry to hear about the dog being injured and, yes, the driver should of stopped. However, the article mentions the word responsibility many times. Surely the owner is responsible for allowing their dog to run onto a busy road. If the dog does not come back on command then it should not be off a lead in an area where it can either, come to harm, or cause harm to others.
I am very sorry to hear about the dog being injured and, yes, the driver should of stopped. However, the article mentions the word responsibility many times. Surely the owner is responsible for allowing their dog to run onto a busy road. If the dog does not come back on command then it should not be off a lead in an area where it can either, come to harm, or cause harm to others. unexpected error
  • Score: 81

7:37am Wed 26 Mar 14

cosmick says...

Yes dog off lead her fault, sorry for the dog. Would you let a young child run away like that.
Yes dog off lead her fault, sorry for the dog. Would you let a young child run away like that. cosmick
  • Score: 52

8:00am Wed 26 Mar 14

IslandJim1 says...

"All we wanted was the driver to pull over and take responsibility"...wa
nt a stupid comment. What is she expecting to hear;
"Yes I hit a dog that you neglected your duty of care towards by allowing it to be off a lead close to a public highway, I hope you don't raise your children with the same parental misconduct, by the way you owe me a couple of hundred pound for the damage you've caused to my vehicle".
Don't quote the law if your yourself are not following it! No doubt the barrage of "lacking empathy" will start, so be aware I feel sorry that the dog and child have been but through this by their careless parent/owner! Ask yourself, does the driver not stopping excuse the misconduct of the pet owner? and what would the headline be if he did "Driver traumatised after careless dog owner causes accident traffic chaos in Weymouth".
"All we wanted was the driver to pull over and take responsibility"...wa nt a stupid comment. What is she expecting to hear; "Yes I hit a dog that you neglected your duty of care towards by allowing it to be off a lead close to a public highway, I hope you don't raise your children with the same parental misconduct, by the way you owe me a couple of hundred pound for the damage you've caused to my vehicle". Don't quote the law if your yourself are not following it! No doubt the barrage of "lacking empathy" will start, so be aware I feel sorry that the dog and child have been but through this by their careless parent/owner! Ask yourself, does the driver not stopping excuse the misconduct of the pet owner? and what would the headline be if he did "Driver traumatised after careless dog owner causes accident traffic chaos in Weymouth". IslandJim1
  • Score: 49

9:11am Wed 26 Mar 14

wowfood says...

unexpected error wrote:
I am very sorry to hear about the dog being injured and, yes, the driver should of stopped. However, the article mentions the word responsibility many times. Surely the owner is responsible for allowing their dog to run onto a busy road. If the dog does not come back on command then it should not be off a lead in an area where it can either, come to harm, or cause harm to others.
The driver also has a responsibility not to stop at the side of a busy main road unless it's an emergency. And in all fairness the dog should NOT have been off the leash that clsoe to a main road. In the fields? The old railway line? Sure those places it's okay to be off leash since there aren't any busy roads nearby. I'm sorry for your dog, and I'm sorry for the stress it has caused you. But for god sakes, do not let a dog off its leash when you're that close to a main road.
[quote][p][bold]unexpected error[/bold] wrote: I am very sorry to hear about the dog being injured and, yes, the driver should of stopped. However, the article mentions the word responsibility many times. Surely the owner is responsible for allowing their dog to run onto a busy road. If the dog does not come back on command then it should not be off a lead in an area where it can either, come to harm, or cause harm to others.[/p][/quote]The driver also has a responsibility not to stop at the side of a busy main road unless it's an emergency. And in all fairness the dog should NOT have been off the leash that clsoe to a main road. In the fields? The old railway line? Sure those places it's okay to be off leash since there aren't any busy roads nearby. I'm sorry for your dog, and I'm sorry for the stress it has caused you. But for god sakes, do not let a dog off its leash when you're that close to a main road. wowfood
  • Score: 34

9:18am Wed 26 Mar 14

mollyanna says...

The same happened to a friends dog ,got hit by a car on the prom , driver did not stop, police were given the cars number , but as far as I know nothing was done ???
The dog is ok but had broke leg
The same happened to a friends dog ,got hit by a car on the prom , driver did not stop, police were given the cars number , but as far as I know nothing was done ??? The dog is ok but had broke leg mollyanna
  • Score: -23

9:41am Wed 26 Mar 14

MaidofDorset says...

The car driver should have stopped and exchanged details as the dog's owner would be responsible for the dent in the car. Household insurance usually comes with some public liability insurance.

I've known a few three legged dogs in my time (and a pet sheep) and they all managed to get about and have a good life so hope Cookie is up and about soon.
The car driver should have stopped and exchanged details as the dog's owner would be responsible for the dent in the car. Household insurance usually comes with some public liability insurance. I've known a few three legged dogs in my time (and a pet sheep) and they all managed to get about and have a good life so hope Cookie is up and about soon. MaidofDorset
  • Score: 17

10:31am Wed 26 Mar 14

bigrand says...

cosmick wrote:
Yes dog off lead her fault, sorry for the dog. Would you let a young child run away like that.
What an idiot you are. So owners fault and nothing to do with the driver not stopping. People like you make me sick
[quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: Yes dog off lead her fault, sorry for the dog. Would you let a young child run away like that.[/p][/quote]What an idiot you are. So owners fault and nothing to do with the driver not stopping. People like you make me sick bigrand
  • Score: -60

10:46am Wed 26 Mar 14

IslandJim1 says...

bigrand wrote:
cosmick wrote:
Yes dog off lead her fault, sorry for the dog. Would you let a young child run away like that.
What an idiot you are. So owners fault and nothing to do with the driver not stopping. People like you make me sick
What an idiot you are....your comment is suggesting that if the driver had stopped after the event then the incident could have been avoided, that's some crazy back to the future logic? Unless you are in fact suggesting that the driver should have known that the dog was running wild in the area and stopped before it ran out into the road, which is also some crazy back to the future logic. The only factor's that can be changed in this event are either the dog or the car not being in the road at that point in time, and as the car is the one who has a right to be on the road, the only logical assumption is that the dog (more importantly the owner) is in the wrong, and the cause of the accident! Try basing your comments on logic, facts and the law, and you might be able to formulate a coherent argument/statement!
[quote][p][bold]bigrand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: Yes dog off lead her fault, sorry for the dog. Would you let a young child run away like that.[/p][/quote]What an idiot you are. So owners fault and nothing to do with the driver not stopping. People like you make me sick[/p][/quote]What an idiot you are....your comment is suggesting that if the driver had stopped after the event then the incident could have been avoided, that's some crazy back to the future logic? Unless you are in fact suggesting that the driver should have known that the dog was running wild in the area and stopped before it ran out into the road, which is also some crazy back to the future logic. The only factor's that can be changed in this event are either the dog or the car not being in the road at that point in time, and as the car is the one who has a right to be on the road, the only logical assumption is that the dog (more importantly the owner) is in the wrong, and the cause of the accident! Try basing your comments on logic, facts and the law, and you might be able to formulate a coherent argument/statement! IslandJim1
  • Score: 38

11:11am Wed 26 Mar 14

peskykat says...

unexpected error wrote:
I am very sorry to hear about the dog being injured and, yes, the driver should of stopped. However, the article mentions the word responsibility many times. Surely the owner is responsible for allowing their dog to run onto a busy road. If the dog does not come back on command then it should not be off a lead in an area where it can either, come to harm, or cause harm to others.
Well said , I am getting so tired of irresponsible owners , surely one of the first things a good owner would attend training classes - I assume there are
local ones ?, as for the comment mentioning dog got knock down on the prom it shouldn't even be off a lead there. Basically you need to look at the surroundings where you are taking your pet for walk and decide if it
should be kept on lead for its own safety or a safe place to let it run freely on it its own - example field with no farm animals, etc.
[quote][p][bold]unexpected error[/bold] wrote: I am very sorry to hear about the dog being injured and, yes, the driver should of stopped. However, the article mentions the word responsibility many times. Surely the owner is responsible for allowing their dog to run onto a busy road. If the dog does not come back on command then it should not be off a lead in an area where it can either, come to harm, or cause harm to others.[/p][/quote]Well said , I am getting so tired of irresponsible owners , surely one of the first things a good owner would attend training classes - I assume there are local ones ?, as for the comment mentioning dog got knock down on the prom it shouldn't even be off a lead there. Basically you need to look at the surroundings where you are taking your pet for walk and decide if it should be kept on lead for its own safety or a safe place to let it run freely on it its own - example field with no farm animals, etc. peskykat
  • Score: 30

11:36am Wed 26 Mar 14

Peter6 says...

Just be thankfull that the dog survived and is O.K. and seems happy from the photograph and for gods sake always keep a young dog on a lead when by a buisy road with no fencing. It could have been a lot worse, the dog could be dead, the driver could have swerved to avoid it and either hit a pedestrian or ended up in the lake. At least you havn't got to pay for the repairs to the car as well.
Just be thankfull that the dog survived and is O.K. and seems happy from the photograph and for gods sake always keep a young dog on a lead when by a buisy road with no fencing. It could have been a lot worse, the dog could be dead, the driver could have swerved to avoid it and either hit a pedestrian or ended up in the lake. At least you havn't got to pay for the repairs to the car as well. Peter6
  • Score: 22

12:06pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Gordon Bennett says...

The responsibility does lie with the dog's owner not to allow it to stray onto a public road. However, accidents happen and certainly does not excuse the driver for not stopping. Still, what goes around quite often comes around, maybe he/she will be left for dead in the middle of the road sometime.
The responsibility does lie with the dog's owner not to allow it to stray onto a public road. However, accidents happen and certainly does not excuse the driver for not stopping. Still, what goes around quite often comes around, maybe he/she will be left for dead in the middle of the road sometime. Gordon Bennett
  • Score: -28

12:55pm Wed 26 Mar 14

JamesYoung says...

I tend to agree with the majority of comments. The accident happened because the dog owner did not exercise a duty of care. The car should still have stopped and that is also against the law. However, that doesn't automatically make them a bad person - plenty of people panic and drive away from road accidents and are wracked with guilt afterward.
Fortunately the dog looks like he'll be fine. I've seen a few dogs with 3 legs and they still seem as steady on 3 as on 4.
I tend to agree with the majority of comments. The accident happened because the dog owner did not exercise a duty of care. The car should still have stopped and that is also against the law. However, that doesn't automatically make them a bad person - plenty of people panic and drive away from road accidents and are wracked with guilt afterward. Fortunately the dog looks like he'll be fine. I've seen a few dogs with 3 legs and they still seem as steady on 3 as on 4. JamesYoung
  • Score: 18

12:56pm Wed 26 Mar 14

JamesYoung says...

I should also add that as the dog hobbled back to its owner, the car driver probably concluded that it was ok.
I should also add that as the dog hobbled back to its owner, the car driver probably concluded that it was ok. JamesYoung
  • Score: 20

1:04pm Wed 26 Mar 14

paddyash says...

omg i blame the owner, that poor doggy, should never have been off its lead, im a dog owner, love my pooch, and would never risk him getting hurt, or in danger, no matter what !!!!!!
omg i blame the owner, that poor doggy, should never have been off its lead, im a dog owner, love my pooch, and would never risk him getting hurt, or in danger, no matter what !!!!!! paddyash
  • Score: 24

2:43pm Wed 26 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

bigrand wrote:
cosmick wrote:
Yes dog off lead her fault, sorry for the dog. Would you let a young child run away like that.
What an idiot you are. So owners fault and nothing to do with the driver not stopping. People like you make me sick
The dog's owner should think themselves lucky the driver isn't holding them responsible for any damage to the car.

Yet another OHEC 'I can never be responsible for the consequences of my own actions' story.
[quote][p][bold]bigrand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: Yes dog off lead her fault, sorry for the dog. Would you let a young child run away like that.[/p][/quote]What an idiot you are. So owners fault and nothing to do with the driver not stopping. People like you make me sick[/p][/quote]The dog's owner should think themselves lucky the driver isn't holding them responsible for any damage to the car. Yet another OHEC 'I can never be responsible for the consequences of my own actions' story. JackJohnson
  • Score: 17

4:07pm Wed 26 Mar 14

floossie60 says...

all the above comments make me sick. all blamind the dog owner, this could have been a child. the bushes along that road are very intermittent. even the best trained dog can some times get distracted.
this car driver had committed an offfence. and totally blaming the dog owner or even the dog. is like blaming a child hit by a hit and run and driver.
i support the dog owner fully. that park area is lacking sercuity for children and dogs.
all the above comments make me sick. all blamind the dog owner, this could have been a child. the bushes along that road are very intermittent. even the best trained dog can some times get distracted. this car driver had committed an offfence. and totally blaming the dog owner or even the dog. is like blaming a child hit by a hit and run and driver. i support the dog owner fully. that park area is lacking sercuity for children and dogs. floossie60
  • Score: -41

4:40pm Wed 26 Mar 14

IslandJim1 says...

floossie60 wrote:
all the above comments make me sick. all blamind the dog owner, this could have been a child. the bushes along that road are very intermittent. even the best trained dog can some times get distracted.
this car driver had committed an offfence. and totally blaming the dog owner or even the dog. is like blaming a child hit by a hit and run and driver.
i support the dog owner fully. that park area is lacking sercuity for children and dogs.
Yes it could have been a child, that's the point! Whether or not the driver stopped AFTER the incident, does not change what came before. A person not in proper control of their dog! I can only hope that they do control their children better, because as you rightly pointed out, this could have been a child! I've just read the DVLA's guidance a personal think it needs some clarification, they refer to accidents involving people and animals, but where is the line...I would not stop if I hit a bunny, squirrel even a badger fox or deer if I did not feel comfortable stopping in that location? can anyone expand on what the law is?
[quote][p][bold]floossie60[/bold] wrote: all the above comments make me sick. all blamind the dog owner, this could have been a child. the bushes along that road are very intermittent. even the best trained dog can some times get distracted. this car driver had committed an offfence. and totally blaming the dog owner or even the dog. is like blaming a child hit by a hit and run and driver. i support the dog owner fully. that park area is lacking sercuity for children and dogs.[/p][/quote]Yes it could have been a child, that's the point! Whether or not the driver stopped AFTER the incident, does not change what came before. A person not in proper control of their dog! I can only hope that they do control their children better, because as you rightly pointed out, this could have been a child! I've just read the DVLA's guidance a personal think it needs some clarification, they refer to accidents involving people and animals, but where is the line...I would not stop if I hit a bunny, squirrel even a badger fox or deer if I did not feel comfortable stopping in that location? can anyone expand on what the law is? IslandJim1
  • Score: 10

4:57pm Wed 26 Mar 14

shy talk says...

IslandJim1 wrote:
floossie60 wrote:
all the above comments make me sick. all blamind the dog owner, this could have been a child. the bushes along that road are very intermittent. even the best trained dog can some times get distracted.
this car driver had committed an offfence. and totally blaming the dog owner or even the dog. is like blaming a child hit by a hit and run and driver.
i support the dog owner fully. that park area is lacking sercuity for children and dogs.
Yes it could have been a child, that's the point! Whether or not the driver stopped AFTER the incident, does not change what came before. A person not in proper control of their dog! I can only hope that they do control their children better, because as you rightly pointed out, this could have been a child! I've just read the DVLA's guidance a personal think it needs some clarification, they refer to accidents involving people and animals, but where is the line...I would not stop if I hit a bunny, squirrel even a badger fox or deer if I did not feel comfortable stopping in that location? can anyone expand on what the law is?
Road Traffic Act 1988. 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.
[quote][p][bold]IslandJim1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]floossie60[/bold] wrote: all the above comments make me sick. all blamind the dog owner, this could have been a child. the bushes along that road are very intermittent. even the best trained dog can some times get distracted. this car driver had committed an offfence. and totally blaming the dog owner or even the dog. is like blaming a child hit by a hit and run and driver. i support the dog owner fully. that park area is lacking sercuity for children and dogs.[/p][/quote]Yes it could have been a child, that's the point! Whether or not the driver stopped AFTER the incident, does not change what came before. A person not in proper control of their dog! I can only hope that they do control their children better, because as you rightly pointed out, this could have been a child! I've just read the DVLA's guidance a personal think it needs some clarification, they refer to accidents involving people and animals, but where is the line...I would not stop if I hit a bunny, squirrel even a badger fox or deer if I did not feel comfortable stopping in that location? can anyone expand on what the law is?[/p][/quote]Road Traffic Act 1988. 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. shy talk
  • Score: 1

5:00pm Wed 26 Mar 14

shy talk says...

*** Is an animal crossed with a horse and mule. Starts with A*S.
*** Is an animal crossed with a horse and mule. Starts with A*S. shy talk
  • Score: 3

6:00pm Wed 26 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

floossie60 wrote:
all the above comments make me sick. all blamind the dog owner, this could have been a child. the bushes along that road are very intermittent. even the best trained dog can some times get distracted.
this car driver had committed an offfence. and totally blaming the dog owner or even the dog. is like blaming a child hit by a hit and run and driver.
i support the dog owner fully. that park area is lacking sercuity for children and dogs.
Not his fault. Even if it had been a child I doubt he'd have been held responsible.

What I don't understand is why he left the scene of the accident. Assuming he had insurance, tax, MOT (if needed), valid driving licence, he was sober and the car wasn't stolen everything was in his favour and he wouldn't have been held responsible (though his insurance company might have just rolled over, accepted responsibility and paid the vet bill). They like to pay out because they know they'll get it back later with interest.
[quote][p][bold]floossie60[/bold] wrote: all the above comments make me sick. all blamind the dog owner, this could have been a child. the bushes along that road are very intermittent. even the best trained dog can some times get distracted. this car driver had committed an offfence. and totally blaming the dog owner or even the dog. is like blaming a child hit by a hit and run and driver. i support the dog owner fully. that park area is lacking sercuity for children and dogs.[/p][/quote]Not his fault. Even if it had been a child I doubt he'd have been held responsible. What I don't understand is why he left the scene of the accident. Assuming he had insurance, tax, MOT (if needed), valid driving licence, he was sober and the car wasn't stolen everything was in his favour and he wouldn't have been held responsible (though his insurance company might have just rolled over, accepted responsibility and paid the vet bill). They like to pay out because they know they'll get it back later with interest. JackJohnson
  • Score: -10

6:23pm Wed 26 Mar 14

portland rebel says...

has no one stopped to think, maybe the driver did stop, and then see the dog limp back through the hedge, so it wasnt dead, therefor he has compiled with the law, second senario, dog chased something into the path of the car and bounced off, the dog is what 40/45cm high, would the driver necessarily have seen the dog ?. maybe not, while i feel sorry for the dog and the owner, i would not let my dogs off within 100mtrs of a road.
has no one stopped to think, maybe the driver did stop, and then see the dog limp back through the hedge, so it wasnt dead, therefor he has compiled with the law, second senario, dog chased something into the path of the car and bounced off, the dog is what 40/45cm high, would the driver necessarily have seen the dog ?. maybe not, while i feel sorry for the dog and the owner, i would not let my dogs off within 100mtrs of a road. portland rebel
  • Score: 13

6:46pm Wed 26 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

portland rebel wrote:
has no one stopped to think, maybe the driver did stop, and then see the dog limp back through the hedge, so it wasnt dead, therefor he has compiled with the law, second senario, dog chased something into the path of the car and bounced off, the dog is what 40/45cm high, would the driver necessarily have seen the dog ?. maybe not, while i feel sorry for the dog and the owner, i would not let my dogs off within 100mtrs of a road.
"JamesYoung says...

"I should also add that as the dog hobbled back to its owner, the car driver probably concluded that it was ok."

That has been considered. Death of the animal is not a requirement of the 1988 Road Traffic Act. Nor is the absence of anyone else to take care of it. By law he should have stopped.

Even if it were not a legal requirement I would stop if I hit a dog to make sure it would be attended to and not cause another accident.

He did commit an offence by leaving the scene of the accident, though there is a get-out clause that allows him to report the accident later. I suspect he hasn't bothered to do that.
[quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: has no one stopped to think, maybe the driver did stop, and then see the dog limp back through the hedge, so it wasnt dead, therefor he has compiled with the law, second senario, dog chased something into the path of the car and bounced off, the dog is what 40/45cm high, would the driver necessarily have seen the dog ?. maybe not, while i feel sorry for the dog and the owner, i would not let my dogs off within 100mtrs of a road.[/p][/quote]"JamesYoung says... "I should also add that as the dog hobbled back to its owner, the car driver probably concluded that it was ok." That has been considered. Death of the animal is not a requirement of the 1988 Road Traffic Act. Nor is the absence of anyone else to take care of it. By law he should have stopped. Even if it were not a legal requirement I would stop if I hit a dog to make sure it would be attended to and not cause another accident. He did commit an offence by leaving the scene of the accident, though there is a get-out clause that allows him to report the accident later. I suspect he hasn't bothered to do that. JackJohnson
  • Score: -10

7:16pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Sigurd Hoberth says...

Another example of the, "no personal responsibility " brigade.
Another example of the, "no personal responsibility " brigade. Sigurd Hoberth
  • Score: 14

8:47am Thu 27 Mar 14

popsiebabes says...

Sigurd Hoberth wrote:
Another example of the, "no personal responsibility " brigade.
That about sums it all up
[quote][p][bold]Sigurd Hoberth[/bold] wrote: Another example of the, "no personal responsibility " brigade.[/p][/quote]That about sums it all up popsiebabes
  • Score: 7

9:24am Thu 27 Mar 14

Rocksalt says...

I suspect that the Echo reporter wanted to avoid upsetting the dog owner by querying her own apparent failure to control her pet. But that's part of a journalist's job, not to just provide an uncritical soapbox. Whilst I don't doubt the intention is to be seen as caring, it's counter-productive when- as in this case- it just sets someone up to look foolish.
I suspect that the Echo reporter wanted to avoid upsetting the dog owner by querying her own apparent failure to control her pet. But that's part of a journalist's job, not to just provide an uncritical soapbox. Whilst I don't doubt the intention is to be seen as caring, it's counter-productive when- as in this case- it just sets someone up to look foolish. Rocksalt
  • Score: 6

11:25am Thu 27 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out.
Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out. JackJohnson
  • Score: -6

5:43pm Thu 27 Mar 14

JamesYoung says...

JackJohnson wrote:
portland rebel wrote:
has no one stopped to think, maybe the driver did stop, and then see the dog limp back through the hedge, so it wasnt dead, therefor he has compiled with the law, second senario, dog chased something into the path of the car and bounced off, the dog is what 40/45cm high, would the driver necessarily have seen the dog ?. maybe not, while i feel sorry for the dog and the owner, i would not let my dogs off within 100mtrs of a road.
"JamesYoung says...

"I should also add that as the dog hobbled back to its owner, the car driver probably concluded that it was ok."

That has been considered. Death of the animal is not a requirement of the 1988 Road Traffic Act. Nor is the absence of anyone else to take care of it. By law he should have stopped.

Even if it were not a legal requirement I would stop if I hit a dog to make sure it would be attended to and not cause another accident.

He did commit an offence by leaving the scene of the accident, though there is a get-out clause that allows him to report the accident later. I suspect he hasn't bothered to do that.
Absolutely, as would I, and have, in fact, when i hit a Weimaraner type dog near the Redlands BP garage about 15 years ago. Went door to door and found the owner. However, it does not automatically follow that the driver, in this case, realised there was any reason to stop.
I'm not excusing the driver. The law is clear. However, if we are talking about could have should have would have, that dog could have caused a head on collision which could have caused fatalities.
The accident happened because the dog was not under control. That is the story here.
As for the comment made by another poster about the usual "it could have been a child". Well, yes, it could have been. If the mother was very neglectful.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: has no one stopped to think, maybe the driver did stop, and then see the dog limp back through the hedge, so it wasnt dead, therefor he has compiled with the law, second senario, dog chased something into the path of the car and bounced off, the dog is what 40/45cm high, would the driver necessarily have seen the dog ?. maybe not, while i feel sorry for the dog and the owner, i would not let my dogs off within 100mtrs of a road.[/p][/quote]"JamesYoung says... "I should also add that as the dog hobbled back to its owner, the car driver probably concluded that it was ok." That has been considered. Death of the animal is not a requirement of the 1988 Road Traffic Act. Nor is the absence of anyone else to take care of it. By law he should have stopped. Even if it were not a legal requirement I would stop if I hit a dog to make sure it would be attended to and not cause another accident. He did commit an offence by leaving the scene of the accident, though there is a get-out clause that allows him to report the accident later. I suspect he hasn't bothered to do that.[/p][/quote]Absolutely, as would I, and have, in fact, when i hit a Weimaraner type dog near the Redlands BP garage about 15 years ago. Went door to door and found the owner. However, it does not automatically follow that the driver, in this case, realised there was any reason to stop. I'm not excusing the driver. The law is clear. However, if we are talking about could have should have would have, that dog could have caused a head on collision which could have caused fatalities. The accident happened because the dog was not under control. That is the story here. As for the comment made by another poster about the usual "it could have been a child". Well, yes, it could have been. If the mother was very neglectful. JamesYoung
  • Score: 6

5:44pm Thu 27 Mar 14

JamesYoung says...

JackJohnson wrote:
Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out.
So you are advocating more expense for taxpayers so that neglectful owners/parents can carry on regardless.
Seriously, we have to draw the line somewhere.
And i say that as a past dog owner (10 years) and parent.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out.[/p][/quote]So you are advocating more expense for taxpayers so that neglectful owners/parents can carry on regardless. Seriously, we have to draw the line somewhere. And i say that as a past dog owner (10 years) and parent. JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

6:28pm Thu 27 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

JamesYoung wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out.
So you are advocating more expense for taxpayers so that neglectful owners/parents can carry on regardless.
Seriously, we have to draw the line somewhere.
And i say that as a past dog owner (10 years) and parent.
Accidents happen. There is no reason to condemn a child to life in a wheelchair, or even death, just because a parent or guardian was negligent.

I suspect that the bushes/shrubs were originally planted to separate the park from the road. If so, they have proved to be inadequate.

Improving the barrier may prevent a more serious accident in which someone swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid a child, or animal, running out of the park.

At the very least, reduce the speed limit on the lane nearest the park to 30mph and install signage to warn road users of the hazard caused by the park.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out.[/p][/quote]So you are advocating more expense for taxpayers so that neglectful owners/parents can carry on regardless. Seriously, we have to draw the line somewhere. And i say that as a past dog owner (10 years) and parent.[/p][/quote]Accidents happen. There is no reason to condemn a child to life in a wheelchair, or even death, just because a parent or guardian was negligent. I suspect that the bushes/shrubs were originally planted to separate the park from the road. If so, they have proved to be inadequate. Improving the barrier may prevent a more serious accident in which someone swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid a child, or animal, running out of the park. At the very least, reduce the speed limit on the lane nearest the park to 30mph and install signage to warn road users of the hazard caused by the park. JackJohnson
  • Score: -9

9:30pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Witch Hazel says...

This is an awfully distressing story to read.. I firstly hope poor Cookie is making good progress... they seem to manage well on three legs... my JR pulled cruciate ligament and was on three legs for almost 3 months but luckily she regained the use after that.

Had it been me hit the dog, yes I would have stopped... I'm a dog lover so would be very concerned about the dog... and would have done what I could to help. Obviously the driver had no feelings whatsoever... just a shame on his/her part as may have eased the situation a little at that ti
This is an awfully distressing story to read.. I firstly hope poor Cookie is making good progress... they seem to manage well on three legs... my JR pulled cruciate ligament and was on three legs for almost 3 months but luckily she regained the use after that. Had it been me hit the dog, yes I would have stopped... I'm a dog lover so would be very concerned about the dog... and would have done what I could to help. Obviously the driver had no feelings whatsoever... just a shame on his/her part as may have eased the situation a little at that ti Witch Hazel
  • Score: -6

8:57am Fri 28 Mar 14

marabout says...

Cookie
Biscuit
Poppy

Great names....
Cookie Biscuit Poppy Great names.... marabout
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Fri 28 Mar 14

dogloverdorset says...

Poor dog for having such an irresponsible owner, my dogs are trained in recall from the get go,and before I let them off, anywhere near a road they are taught the instant stop and down - its not rocket science - that said I make the effort to exercise them in most of the plentiful areas we are blessed with, that ar nowhere near the road... then all I have to concern myself with is daft owners of fluffy bunnies who because they are;toy; are allowed to crap everywhere, and act aggressively to other dogs......
Poor dog for having such an irresponsible owner, my dogs are trained in recall from the get go,and before I let them off, anywhere near a road they are taught the instant stop and down - its not rocket science - that said I make the effort to exercise them in most of the plentiful areas we are blessed with, that ar nowhere near the road... then all I have to concern myself with is daft owners of fluffy bunnies who because they are;toy; are allowed to crap everywhere, and act aggressively to other dogs...... dogloverdorset
  • Score: 3

10:57am Sat 29 Mar 14

JamesYoung says...

JackJohnson wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out.
So you are advocating more expense for taxpayers so that neglectful owners/parents can carry on regardless.
Seriously, we have to draw the line somewhere.
And i say that as a past dog owner (10 years) and parent.
Accidents happen. There is no reason to condemn a child to life in a wheelchair, or even death, just because a parent or guardian was negligent.

I suspect that the bushes/shrubs were originally planted to separate the park from the road. If so, they have proved to be inadequate.

Improving the barrier may prevent a more serious accident in which someone swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid a child, or animal, running out of the park.

At the very least, reduce the speed limit on the lane nearest the park to 30mph and install signage to warn road users of the hazard caused by the park.
So should we build a fence between the road and the pavement on every urban road? Maybe with child proof locks to stop a child opening a gate and walking onto the road? Maybe every car should have somebody walking in front of it, ringing a bell, as in days of yore.
I think you'll find there's lots of interesting research that shows the more safety you build into a system, the less safe it becomes, because people rely on the system and don't think for themselves.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out.[/p][/quote]So you are advocating more expense for taxpayers so that neglectful owners/parents can carry on regardless. Seriously, we have to draw the line somewhere. And i say that as a past dog owner (10 years) and parent.[/p][/quote]Accidents happen. There is no reason to condemn a child to life in a wheelchair, or even death, just because a parent or guardian was negligent. I suspect that the bushes/shrubs were originally planted to separate the park from the road. If so, they have proved to be inadequate. Improving the barrier may prevent a more serious accident in which someone swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid a child, or animal, running out of the park. At the very least, reduce the speed limit on the lane nearest the park to 30mph and install signage to warn road users of the hazard caused by the park.[/p][/quote]So should we build a fence between the road and the pavement on every urban road? Maybe with child proof locks to stop a child opening a gate and walking onto the road? Maybe every car should have somebody walking in front of it, ringing a bell, as in days of yore. I think you'll find there's lots of interesting research that shows the more safety you build into a system, the less safe it becomes, because people rely on the system and don't think for themselves. JamesYoung
  • Score: 3

12:01pm Sat 29 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

JamesYoung wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out.
So you are advocating more expense for taxpayers so that neglectful owners/parents can carry on regardless.
Seriously, we have to draw the line somewhere.
And i say that as a past dog owner (10 years) and parent.
Accidents happen. There is no reason to condemn a child to life in a wheelchair, or even death, just because a parent or guardian was negligent.

I suspect that the bushes/shrubs were originally planted to separate the park from the road. If so, they have proved to be inadequate.

Improving the barrier may prevent a more serious accident in which someone swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid a child, or animal, running out of the park.

At the very least, reduce the speed limit on the lane nearest the park to 30mph and install signage to warn road users of the hazard caused by the park.
So should we build a fence between the road and the pavement on every urban road? Maybe with child proof locks to stop a child opening a gate and walking onto the road? Maybe every car should have somebody walking in front of it, ringing a bell, as in days of yore.
I think you'll find there's lots of interesting research that shows the more safety you build into a system, the less safe it becomes, because people rely on the system and don't think for themselves.
A barrier needs to be between play areas (nice grass area for kids to kick a ball around) and fast roads (greater than 30mph). Children who have not yet been taught how to cross a road safely do need protection whether you like it or not, and no matter what risks you allow your children to be exposed to.

Did you let your kids play in areas where they were put at risk of serious harm? It's hard to learn a lesson in road safety if the student dies.

It's impossible for a fence, or similar barrier, to be less safe than no fence/barrier simply because it is there. If it's about false perceptions of safety perhaps we should take cars back to 1950 build standards so that people are less likely to break the speed limit instead of being morons and thinking it's ok because in the event of an accident they'll be ok because the door-bars and air bags will protect them.

It is likely that in the event of a fatal accident at that particular park the organisation that operates and owns that park may be held liable for having insufficient protection. A payout would easily exceed the cost of installing an adequate barrier. It's only a matter of time - I don't want to be posting 'I told you so' in the comments section of the OHEC, but I will.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: Whatever else this story shows, about the driver and the dog owner, it also shows that the bushes alongside that road are not adequate. The speed limit on the road should be reduced to 30mph or there should be a fence between the road an the park so that children (and animals) can't run out.[/p][/quote]So you are advocating more expense for taxpayers so that neglectful owners/parents can carry on regardless. Seriously, we have to draw the line somewhere. And i say that as a past dog owner (10 years) and parent.[/p][/quote]Accidents happen. There is no reason to condemn a child to life in a wheelchair, or even death, just because a parent or guardian was negligent. I suspect that the bushes/shrubs were originally planted to separate the park from the road. If so, they have proved to be inadequate. Improving the barrier may prevent a more serious accident in which someone swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid a child, or animal, running out of the park. At the very least, reduce the speed limit on the lane nearest the park to 30mph and install signage to warn road users of the hazard caused by the park.[/p][/quote]So should we build a fence between the road and the pavement on every urban road? Maybe with child proof locks to stop a child opening a gate and walking onto the road? Maybe every car should have somebody walking in front of it, ringing a bell, as in days of yore. I think you'll find there's lots of interesting research that shows the more safety you build into a system, the less safe it becomes, because people rely on the system and don't think for themselves.[/p][/quote]A barrier needs to be between play areas (nice grass area for kids to kick a ball around) and fast roads (greater than 30mph). Children who have not yet been taught how to cross a road safely do need protection whether you like it or not, and no matter what risks you allow your children to be exposed to. Did you let your kids play in areas where they were put at risk of serious harm? It's hard to learn a lesson in road safety if the student dies. It's impossible for a fence, or similar barrier, to be less safe than no fence/barrier simply because it is there. If it's about false perceptions of safety perhaps we should take cars back to 1950 build standards so that people are less likely to break the speed limit instead of being morons and thinking it's ok because in the event of an accident they'll be ok because the door-bars and air bags will protect them. It is likely that in the event of a fatal accident at that particular park the organisation that operates and owns that park may be held liable for having insufficient protection. A payout would easily exceed the cost of installing an adequate barrier. It's only a matter of time - I don't want to be posting 'I told you so' in the comments section of the OHEC, but I will. JackJohnson
  • Score: -4

2:54pm Sat 29 Mar 14

dogloverdorset says...

It could have been a child ? really ?are parents now so irresponsible they would let a child run through bushes on to a main road??? if the child is young enough not to have road sense it should be in a buggy or on reins

BRING BACK THE TUFTY CLUB I SAY
It could have been a child ? really ?are parents now so irresponsible they would let a child run through bushes on to a main road??? if the child is young enough not to have road sense it should be in a buggy or on reins BRING BACK THE TUFTY CLUB I SAY dogloverdorset
  • Score: 3

3:32pm Sat 29 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

dogloverdorset wrote:
It could have been a child ? really ?are parents now so irresponsible they would let a child run through bushes on to a main road??? if the child is young enough not to have road sense it should be in a buggy or on reins

BRING BACK THE TUFTY CLUB I SAY
Road accidents account for over 60% of all childhood deaths.
[quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: It could have been a child ? really ?are parents now so irresponsible they would let a child run through bushes on to a main road??? if the child is young enough not to have road sense it should be in a buggy or on reins BRING BACK THE TUFTY CLUB I SAY[/p][/quote]Road accidents account for over 60% of all childhood deaths. JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

4:46pm Sun 30 Mar 14

dogloverdorset says...

JackJohnson wrote:
dogloverdorset wrote:
It could have been a child ? really ?are parents now so irresponsible they would let a child run through bushes on to a main road??? if the child is young enough not to have road sense it should be in a buggy or on reins

BRING BACK THE TUFTY CLUB I SAY
Road accidents account for over 60% of all childhood deaths.
I realise that - and I bet 99% due to the parents not teaching their children road safety - hence the need for road safety training, at an early age
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: It could have been a child ? really ?are parents now so irresponsible they would let a child run through bushes on to a main road??? if the child is young enough not to have road sense it should be in a buggy or on reins BRING BACK THE TUFTY CLUB I SAY[/p][/quote]Road accidents account for over 60% of all childhood deaths.[/p][/quote]I realise that - and I bet 99% due to the parents not teaching their children road safety - hence the need for road safety training, at an early age dogloverdorset
  • Score: -1

5:07pm Sun 30 Mar 14

JackJohnson says...

dogloverdorset wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
dogloverdorset wrote:
It could have been a child ? really ?are parents now so irresponsible they would let a child run through bushes on to a main road??? if the child is young enough not to have road sense it should be in a buggy or on reins

BRING BACK THE TUFTY CLUB I SAY
Road accidents account for over 60% of all childhood deaths.
I realise that - and I bet 99% due to the parents not teaching their children road safety - hence the need for road safety training, at an early age
The number of children killed in road accidents is reducing year on year so that, at least, is going in the right direction.
[quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: It could have been a child ? really ?are parents now so irresponsible they would let a child run through bushes on to a main road??? if the child is young enough not to have road sense it should be in a buggy or on reins BRING BACK THE TUFTY CLUB I SAY[/p][/quote]Road accidents account for over 60% of all childhood deaths.[/p][/quote]I realise that - and I bet 99% due to the parents not teaching their children road safety - hence the need for road safety training, at an early age[/p][/quote]The number of children killed in road accidents is reducing year on year so that, at least, is going in the right direction. JackJohnson
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree