• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Dispute over cat "ownership": police say it's a "civil matter"

Status
Not open for further replies.

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,617
You are entirely wrong, they are owned as evidenced. So if you hit a cat it is okay to drive off into the distance and simply leave it lying inured on the road is it? No, absolutely not. The correct thing to do is get out and make sure the cat is okay and to attempt to trace the owner, failing that you must seek medical attention from a vet immediately. The law currently does not state that you must report hitting a cat to the police in the same way as a dog although that does not mean anyone can side step their moral obligations

Common sense applies to a degree. I was once with my aunt on a motorway. A cat ran under the car and judging by the bump it was hit pretty solidly. No one in their right mind is going to stop on a motorway to deal with a cat.

It's sad but they're animals and on occasion through their own misadventure they run under road vehicles just as foxes, badgers and deer are occasionally wont to do. Depending on what occurs you might not even notice if you're in a larger vehicle.

I drove down a road recently and found a cat that had been hit by a car. Being an animal lover and non squeamish type I stopped and had a look and it was clearly dead and had been long enough for rigour mortis to have set in. I moved the body to the side of the road as I had places to be and it was 5am. When I came home from work it was gone.

On a different tangent my brother once ran over a toddler who without warning got away from his mother and ran right in front of him - nothing he could do and he was gutted. The whole incident was witnessed by a police officer and no action taken but regardless of the scenario you would stop.

That's the difference between hitting a cat and hitting a person.

A dog being larger is also more likely to damage the vehicle.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
That's the difference between hitting a cat and hitting a person.
.

You might risk an accident (say swerving to avoid and damaging vehicles, property etc or suddenly stopping and risk the car behind hitting you) to avoid hitting a child or person but few would risk the lives and well being of other people for a cat. Am sure there are some who would brake suddenly and cause an accident rather than run over a cat but they should rightly be prosecuted. Driving is a life skill and the number one element is to preserve human life - cats and other pets are a secondary consideration.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
It is entirely different. My tv can't walk off of its own accord. Goodness me.

And of course, once stolen your tv can't walk back of it's own accord... which begs the question... why hasn't the cat done so? is it bound and gagged in the neighbour's cellar?
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
You are entirely wrong, they are owned as evidenced. So if you hit a cat it is okay to drive off into the distance and simply leave it lying inured on the road is it? No, absolutely not. The correct thing to do is get out and make sure the cat is okay and to attempt to trace the owner, failing that you must seek medical attention from a vet immediately. The law currently does not state that you must report hitting a cat to the police in the same way as a dog although that does not mean anyone can side step their moral obligations
Morally... no it's not right to hit a cat and just drive off.. however legally if you hit a cat there is no legal obligation to stop, check that the cat is ok, trace the owner or report the accident to the police, unlike dogs, horses, sheep, cows, pigs. I would suggest the reason why this is is because cats, unlike the other animals mentioned, cannot be used for profit or gain... ie you are not depriving someone of income...
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,679
Location
Redcar
And of course, once stolen your tv can't walk back of it's own accord... which begs the question... why hasn't the cat done so? is it bound and gagged in the neighbour's cellar?

Maybe it was just really happy where it ended up? It is a cat after all.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
Maybe it was just really happy where it ended up? It is a cat after all.
yup... when I was a kid our neighbour had a ginger tom that was fond of wandering... sometimes for days... one day it wandered off...three years later it turned up again... turned out it'd only been in living in the next street with an old lady... and it only came "home" when the lady died... obviously it preferred whiskas to kit-e-kat
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
I seem to recall that the mnemonic was DG CHAMPS (dogs, goats, cattle, horses, asses, mules, pigs and sheep); I assume that the asses referred to are donkeys rather than some of the people I get to deal with at work! ;)
Actually, a bit off topic I know, but Luton Arndale used to have it's byelaws posted at the entrances... one of those byelaws was that you couldn't walk any of those animals through it's hallowed precincts... with Whipsnade Zoo being only a few miles away it always made me wonder why there was no mention of Elephants, camels, zebras, lions, tigers, crocodiles..............
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,072
Location
UK
You might risk an accident (say swerving to avoid and damaging vehicles, property etc or suddenly stopping and risk the car behind hitting you) to avoid hitting a child or person but few would risk the lives and well being of other people for a cat. Am sure there are some who would brake suddenly and cause an accident rather than run over a cat but they should rightly be prosecuted. Driving is a life skill and the number one element is to preserve human life - cats and other pets are a secondary consideration.

The problem is that you can be told and taught lots of things, but when first put in such a situation the instinct will be to avoid a living thing - and I doubt many would not panic and just go for the cat instead of trying (and potentially failing with worse consequences) to avoid.

In reality, I doubt many people would be prosecuted for trying to avoid a cat.
 

K12r

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
51
You don’t legally have to stop or report if you hit a cat ( because they are stupid ).

OP - the remedy is in your own hands. The cops have better things to spend their time on. If you’re that bothered then it’s a simple matter to instigate proceedings to try to get your pussy.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,688
Location
Another planet...
You might risk an accident (say swerving to avoid and damaging vehicles, property etc or suddenly stopping and risk the car behind hitting you) to avoid hitting a child or person but few would risk the lives and well being of other people for a cat. Am sure there are some who would brake suddenly and cause an accident rather than run over a cat but they should rightly be prosecuted. Driving is a life skill and the number one element is to preserve human life - cats and other pets are a secondary consideration.
I absolutely would brake to avoid hitting a cat, I (and I assume most people) would detect a living thing crossing my path and be on the brakes before I'd had chance to consider the legal implications of such. If somebody rear-ended me as a result, then they must've been following too close.
 

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
I absolutely would brake to avoid hitting a cat, I (and I assume most people) would detect a living thing crossing my path and be on the brakes before I'd had chance to consider the legal implications of such. If somebody rear-ended me as a result, then they must've been following too close.

I did not say don't avoid hitting it if possible but if the response of avoiding it means you mount a busy pavement or braking means you may be hit by the vehicle behind then your proper judgement would be to hit the cat. The argument about prosecution I meant would be if you injured a person in avoiding the cat - your duty lies in preserving human life first and felines second.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,072
Location
UK
It seems hard enough for the car industry to work out how a fully autonomous vehicle will deal with the situation, let alone a human.

It's like learning first aid but not using it in real life. First time something happens, I bet loads of people panic and forget what they've been taught. The same applies to a motorist who first encounters water and aquaplanes, or gets involved in a skid.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,688
Location
Another planet...
I did not say don't avoid hitting it if possible but if the response of avoiding it means you mount a busy pavement or braking means you may be hit by the vehicle behind then your proper judgement would be to hit the cat. The argument about prosecution I meant would be if you injured a person in avoiding the cat - your duty lies in preserving human life first and felines second.
Well yes, but you will note I said nothing of changing direction. Therefore the only potential collision is from behind- if someone is tailgating me, hits me because I made an emergency stop to avoid ANY obstacle, and is injured as a result, then frankly it's on them. I'd also hit the horn as that's more likely to cause the cat to take evasive action itself. Ideally I wouldn't swerve to avoid a person either (especially towards a pavement or oncoming traffic) as there's too many other variables such as other vehicles and obstacles. Even the behaviour of the person in question is a factor, how many times have you been walking towards someone and both move in the same direction to get past.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,585
I seem to recall that the mnemonic was DG CHAMPS (dogs, goats, cattle, horses, asses, mules, pigs and sheep); I assume that the asses referred to are donkeys rather than some of the people I get to deal with at work! ;)
In police training the mnemonic was How Can A Motorist Drive Past Grazing Sheep.
 

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
I did not say don't avoid hitting it if possible but if the response of avoiding it means you mount a busy pavement or braking means you may be hit by the vehicle behind then your proper judgement would be to hit the cat.

Now I don't drive, but I am pretty sure that if someone collides with the back of your car because you stopped for a cat, it is their fault. As far as I am aware drivers are supposed to keep a safe distance from vehicles in front for the very scenario of them suddenly braking for an object on the road.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
I did not say don't avoid hitting it if possible but if the response of avoiding it means you mount a busy pavement or braking means you may be hit by the vehicle behind then your proper judgement would be to hit the cat. The argument about prosecution I meant would be if you injured a person in avoiding the cat - your duty lies in preserving human life first and felines second.

Oh for crying out loud nobody here is talking about mounting a busy pavement instead of hitting a cat.

As for being hit from behind, whoever is behind you should be far enough behind that they could safely break without hitting your car if you were to have to break suddenly. If they are close enough that they cannot, then that is their fault. Simple as. Your slamming on the breaks could be down to a child in the road!
 

Mutant Lemming

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
3,194
Location
London
Oh for crying out loud nobody here is talking about mounting a busy pavement instead of hitting a cat.

As for being hit from behind, whoever is behind you should be far enough behind that they could safely break without hitting your car if you were to have to break suddenly. If they are close enough that they cannot, then that is their fault. Simple as. Your slamming on the breaks could be down to a child in the road!

Yes you are correct people should always keep a braking distance behind the car but if you are aware a vehicle is close behind and may run into you if you brake suddenly then you squash the cat.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,688
Location
Another planet...
Yes you are correct people should always keep a braking distance behind the car but if you are aware a vehicle is close behind and may run into you if you brake suddenly then you squash the cat.
No. No I don't. If they're tailgating, it ain't on me. If I see something, anything, enter my path then I'll brake (not break! ;)) to avoid hitting it. Whether it's a cat, a pheasant, a child or a football (which may be followed by a child).

But back on topic, perhaps consult staff at your local RSPCA centre? They often deal with legal issues relating to pets (admittedly usually mistreatment), and if you're able to demonstrate that you were caring adequately for the kitty in question, as seems obvious from your postings, they may be able to advise better than a disparate bunch of railway employees and enthusiasts! ;)
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,786
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Now I don't drive, but I am pretty sure that if someone collides with the back of your car because you stopped for a cat, it is their fault. As far as I am aware drivers are supposed to keep a safe distance from vehicles in front for the very scenario of them suddenly braking for an object on the road.

Yes of course it’s down to the vehicle behind - they shouldn’t be driving too close.

Even simply looking at things from a purely selfish point of view there are good reasons not to hit certain animals - even quite small ones can do quite a bit of damage, and you really don’t want to be driving straight into something like a deer if it can possibly be avoided.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,786
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Yes you are correct people should always keep a braking distance behind the car but if you are aware a vehicle is close behind and may run into you if you brake suddenly then you squash the cat.

It’s for this very reason that I tend to slow down if someone is too close behind. Perhaps a few get the hint. I don’t really hang around so having people close behind is not routine, but it does happen occasionally - it’s something which greatly annoys me.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
It’s for this very reason that I tend to slow down if someone is too close behind. Perhaps a few get the hint. I don’t really hang around so having people close behind is not routine, but it does happen occasionally - it’s something which greatly annoys me.
The trick is to rest your left foot on the brake pedal... it don't half give them a fright when your brake lights come on!
 

swj99

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2011
Messages
765
It might be worth looking at the Theft Act 1968 for a definition of what is, and isn't theft. Personally, if someone refused to return an item of my property I would consider applying for a court injunction against the person in possession of it, or taking it back by force if necessary and practicable to do so. It would not be theft, because you cannot steal your own property and of course simply taking back what belongs to you would mean your actions did not fit the legal definition of theft.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft
 
Joined
20 Mar 2018
Messages
103
Shouldn’t be surprised that on a rail forum, cats are considered by many to be useless vermin, sorry OP, but perhaps mumsnet would have given you consistently better advice and more sympathy. As for the police, they are well known in the real world for refusing to do their job and lying, so persist, and/or take your own (legally sanctioned) measures as necessary.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
As for the police, they are well known in the real world for refusing to do their job and lying

The problem the police will have is simple... where's the evidence? They will have one person saying "my cat has been stolen by my neighbour" whilst the other party will just say to the police "no I didn't it's my cat" unless there is documentary evidence that the cat belongs to one or the other {and the OP has already stated the cat wasn't microchipped} then there is little the police can do... it is a case of one person's word against another's so no case could be brought to court. That's not to say that the police weren't lazy or insensitive in explaining the position. What do you suggest they do? Exercise the wisdom of Solomon?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,325
Location
Fenny Stratford
Shouldn’t be surprised that on a rail forum, cats are considered by many to be useless vermin, sorry OP, but perhaps mumsnet would have given you consistently better advice and more sympathy. As for the police, they are well known in the real world for refusing to do their job and lying, so persist, and/or take your own (legally sanctioned) measures as necessary.

preposterous nonsense.

it is a case of one person's word against another's so no case could be brought to court.

exactly - nor is it a sensible use of limited police time and resources to investigate such a non issue. That is not being harsh to the OP. It is reality.

Sorry madam we would love to investigate the possible murder of your husband but our crack detectives are out looking for a lost cat.........................
 

K12r

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
51
The trick is to rest your left foot on the brake pedal... it don't half give them a fright when your brake lights come on!

If you two think slowing down, and stunts like this are a good idea I seriously hope you’re never in control of anything bigger than a car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top