It is an anomaly that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland there is a requirement to report an accident involving an animal which is not in the vehicle provided the animal is one of the following: horse, cattle (e.g. cows), ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog.
Cats are not listed and it is time for this oversight to be corrected by the Department for Transport who can possibly add in cats to the list of animals under a statutory instrument which means there is no need for primary legislation (debating and passing a bill into law as a statute). It could be an easy process.
The law on this is the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 170, extracts of which I have reproduced below. I am trying to think why cats were left out of the list in the first place. The reason is probably linked to the concept that cats are free-roaming in the UK and therefore are not possessed or owned in a strict sense or less so than the dog or cattle. That is perhaps a poor argument but I don’t have a better one. It is outdated. It ignores the emotional connection. There was a time perhaps before the 1950s when, in the UK, cats were treated more like modern day barn cats.
Extracts from the relevant section of the law:
170 Duty of driver to stop, report accident and give information or documents.
(1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place, an accident occurs by which—
(a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that mechanically propelled vehicle, or
(b) damage is caused—
(i) to a vehicle other than that mechanically propelled vehicle or a trailer drawn by that mechanically propelled vehicle, or
(ii) to an animal other than an animal in or on that mechanically propelled vehicle or a trailer drawn by that mechanically propelled vehicle, or
(iii) to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road or place in question is situated or land adjacent to such land.
(2) The driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle must stop and, if required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(3) If for any reason the driver of the mechanically propelled vehicle does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must report the accident. (4) A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is guilty of an offence.
(8) In this section “animal” means horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog.
Yes as always it’s all about money and cats are deemed of little value by those who don’t love them.
With regard to the list of animals which drivers do have to report an accident with, it’s just occurred to me that they’re all livestock or working farm animals. The loss of which could have a financial impact on the owner and perhaps that’s why such accidents have to be reported.
I agree. It goes back to the idea of “possession” and “value” as if the animal is a inanimate object of financial value. This indicates how old-fashioned the current law is. It is badly out of date.
This concept is great but would never happen here.
It would never be thought of as reportable, because the fault of an injured or dead cat would be the blame of the owner for allowing their cat to free-roam.
Nice point. I suppose the concept of reporting is the creation of communal responsibilities. People supporting each other. Perhaps America is more about individual freedoms and responsibilities.
I believe UK legislation considers cats to be “ferae naturae” as they can’t be trained or controlled in the same way as dogs. Since cats are unlikely to cause injury to people and livestock, or damage to property, they were granted roaming rights which exempt them from trespass laws.
Dogs were not granted the same freedoms and that’s why they had/have to be licensed/registered. Dog owners are liable to pay compensation if their dog causes a car accident and it’s strongly recommended that owners take out public liability insurance cover for their pets. On the Wheels At Once web site, they state “When asked, more than 48% of people said that they would be prepared to sue a dog owner, whose dog caused an accident or injury, including a road traffic accident.”
If the law were changed and drivers had to report hitting a cat on the road, then surely that would then make owners equally liable if their cat caused an accident? I don’t see how those changes could be brought into place without impinging on the cat’s right to roam and exemption from trespass.
Interesting thoughts. I think the bottom line is that our relationship with the cat has to be brought into the 21st century from a legal standpoint. Back in the old days cats were put out at night. They were almost community cats in the UK. Now they are family members and certainly equal to dogs. They should be on a par with dogs. I think this will raise the perceived value of cats. There may be some downsides but cats are still seen as of lower value than dogs, I feel.
As for cats causing accidents, in practical terms, I don’t think it happens. Occasionally perhaps but to such a low extent as to be insignificant.
This is important as it may discourage the reprehensible practice of people throwing cats out of cars, as well.
Yes, and it will increase the value in terms of status of the cat. If the cat can be killed willy-nilly without reporting it does indicate the cat has little value (by which I don’t mean monetary value but emotional value and status).