Act now before more pets or people are killed

4:52pm Wednesday 27th February 2013 in Letters

ON Tuesday, February 19, my daughter’s pet cat was killed by an inconsiderate motorist, who probably wasn’t even paying attention to the road.

It happened sometime between 6pm and 8pm on Bridge Lane in Appleton. The incident has left my daughter very distraught and she will not go to school or even eat.

The motorist didn’t even have the decency to stop. The only reason we found out was because the car following them stopped and told us.

So if you are reading this and think you are the person responsible please come forward and apologise. You have taken away one of my daughter’s best friends and displayed no remorse by just driving away. You may think ‘it’s only a cat’ but to a little girl this was more. It was her best friend that had been there through everything.

As a side note, I think more needs to be done about the situation on Bridge Lane. At the far end there are speed bumps and everything is fine. However near the care home there are so many cars parked on the side of the road that drivers have to swerve in and out. This causes chaos when a bus attempts to get through.

The last section of the lane is a fairly steep decline which many people speed down likely reaching 50mph to 60 mph before getting to the bottom which is a 30mph zone. I urgently call for councillors to do something about this before something worse happens. On Tuesday another beloved pet was killed, tomorrow it may be one of your loved ones.

JOHN SMITH

Appleton

Comments(60)

old-codger says...
8:10pm Wed 27 Feb 13

ON Tuesday, February 19, my daughter’s pet cat was killed by an inconsiderate motorist, who probably wasn’t even paying attention to the road. ................

Your cat was on the road,

You did
n,t see it happen,

So you dont have the right to call anyone inconsiderate or state that they probably was,nt looking at the road,
I,m sorry for your daughters loss and the pain she must be feeling but that does,t give you the right to blame motorists when cats are left to roam at will, You must accept some responsibility for your cats actions, The driver may not even be aware of it if its run out from between all these parked cars, You should apologise for your accusations..

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
10:43pm Wed 27 Feb 13

I understand that cats are not universally liked in our British culture. I have witnessed on a couple occasions drivers deliberately trying to collide with cats that have attempted to cross roads, a truly despicable act on the part of the driver. That being said, pet cats have beneficial effects for many people and are often cherished and will be truly well loved. When they die they leave an emotional crevasse that can be inconsolable for the cats owner. I sincerely offer my condolences to the family, and especially to the child so greatly bereaved.

The secondary point that John Smith of Appleton makes, with reference to vehicle drivers and a common plague on our suburban roadways, that of inconsiderate drivers, who seem to believe that they own the road, and drive as they wish, whether it is safely or not. There will soon be further speed restrictions applied to such areas, however, will they be supervised adequately by the appropriate agency or statutory institution? The next living entity to die or be seriously injured on this road may well be a cat or possibly a human being.

Report this post »

chunkymunky says...
10:26am Thu 28 Feb 13

old-codger wrote:
ON Tuesday, February 19, my daughter’s pet cat was killed by an inconsiderate motorist, who probably wasn’t even paying attention to the road. ................ Your cat was on the road, You did n,t see it happen, So you dont have the right to call anyone inconsiderate or state that they probably was,nt looking at the road, I,m sorry for your daughters loss and the pain she must be feeling but that does,t give you the right to blame motorists when cats are left to roam at will, You must accept some responsibility for your cats actions, The driver may not even be aware of it if its run out from between all these parked cars, You should apologise for your accusations..
ohhh bloomin eck its the 'cats have freedom to roam' argument again we get every so often!!

if you let your cat roam on the roads either teach it to use crossings and press buttons for the little green man or risk having them run over, its quite simple!!!

As usual the cat owners take no responsibility for their own pet! its your cat....not ours!! look after the bloomin thing!!

Report this post »

mr_BLUNT says...
11:03am Thu 28 Feb 13

does a cat have wheels no, then it should not have been in the road. the driver was not legally obliged to stop

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
12:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13

in fact the highway code says that if it is a small animal not likely to cause damage then the motorist should not take avoiding action as that could lead to an incident where greater damage can be cause, or words to that effect, its not the fact that the driver was inconsiderate but if he swerved to miss the cat he could have hit another vehicle causing a much larger incident.... unfortunately the driver did the right thing. the motorist cannot be responsible for everything and everyone else on the road.

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
12:20pm Thu 28 Feb 13

and just to make it perfectly clear... if i was walking on bridge lane and decided to cross without looking and got hit by a motorist... IT WOULD BE MY FAULT, not the motorist... even if the car was doing 120mph i would still see it and still not cross because the law still stands that unless it is a pedestrian crossing, then the motorist, the car or indeed the traffic has right of way.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
1:35pm Thu 28 Feb 13

mr_BLUNT wrote:
does a cat have wheels no, then it should not have been in the road. the driver was not legally obliged to stop
It is a common and expected occurrence for pedestrians to cross or walk on the road surface especially when inconsiderate motorists have parked on pavements and verges. Oh, and there is the inconsiderate refuse operatives that leave bins blocking access on pavements and causing pedestrians, many who are disabled in some way, to divert their route into the roadway. Your wheel theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny as prams, push chairs, wheel chairs and those very useful mobility scooters,bicycles, motor bikes etc, etc, may also need to use the roads as part of their daily journeys. One absolute skill of driving is to be aware of road conditions, other traffic and any possible obstructions, although I am not convinced that every driver has this skill and ability. Excess speed is a major cause of accidents and is considered intolerable however you dress it up!

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
1:49pm Thu 28 Feb 13

gazhopley wrote:
and just to make it perfectly clear... if i was walking on bridge lane and decided to cross without looking and got hit by a motorist... IT WOULD BE MY FAULT, not the motorist... even if the car was doing 120mph i would still see it and still not cross because the law still stands that unless it is a pedestrian crossing, then the motorist, the car or indeed the traffic has right of way.
So you wouldn't claim any compensation for you possible injuries then? Surely blame would be dependant on the individual circumstances and evidence in each case! Certainly the motorist would be to blame if they were doing 120 mph, unless it was at Branshatch, Silverstone or at some other approved racetrack! Of course the motorist has the right of way but only with regard to due care and attention. See the highway code for further information as it seems to be a long time since you last perused it or understood it correctly.

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
2:08pm Thu 28 Feb 13

what???? the 120mph example was highly exaggerated the same as you theory of what is acceptable or not. it is not acceptable for pedestrians to use the road for any other reason than to cross it, if there are cars parked on pavements then these motorists should be reported for causing an obstruction, and not an excuse to alter the laws as pedestrians to see fit. my point is if i want to cross the road, i find a safe place to cross, look left, look right, look left again and if there is nothing coming then i would cross, so the answer is no i wouldn't claim compensation for an incident i have caused... the answer isn't about who to blame, its about making sure the incidents dont happen in the first place. everyone should be responsible for road safety, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. stop playing the blame game and just to refer to your earlier comment "One absolute skill of driving is to be aware of road conditions, other traffic and any possible obstructions" wouldn't it be useful if everyone knew about things like road conditions especially when it comes to a pedestrian crossing the road, knowing how road conditions can change the stopping distance of a car perhaps, oo i forgot that means the pedestrian would have to do something responsible and according to our council, we can't have that can we? or maybe cyclists having to learn the highway code? ah can't have that either because they will find out its illegal to ride a bike on a pavement, but according to most cyclists in "britishcycling" i have spoken to, its ok to break the law because it is safer for cyclists to ride on the pavement, however it isn't safer for the pedestrians. so in conclusion SAC before you start on the responsibilities of the motorist... take a look around first and see the whole of the problem not just the best bit for you!!!!

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
3:17pm Thu 28 Feb 13

gazhopley,

I suggest that you should take your own thoughtful advice, and as you say, "take a look around first and see the whole of the problem not just the best bit for you!!!!"

If I were to exhaust all the arguments on the subject I would have to quote the whole highway code, but then I don't need to as it has already been published in the public domain, therefore,a I can be selective, and restrict it to a point of issue. What is your view of pedestrians having to use roads without pavements? Pavement parkers deserve to get their vehicle damaged without complaining about it. I have no regrets pushing a wheelchair past in such circumstances and thereby causing various amounts of paint damage to the vehicles. I certainly do not expect any road user to abdicate any of their responsibility for their own and other peoples safety on the road! Do you reasonably agree with that last point?

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
3:46pm Thu 28 Feb 13

i certainly do agree with your last point, there can only be 100% responsibility for road safety... the problem is, if the motorist is expected to have more responsibility for road safety then by simple maths, other road users would have to have less. by your own argument then... cyclists should be pushed off their bikes by pedestrians if they are riding on the pavement because they shouldn't be there either, and as far as pavements are concerned, if you are having to use a route where there are no pavements then that is a job for the council. but if you have to always walk on the righthand side so you can see oncoming traffic instead of having the traffic come from behind... its all about helping each other, something sadly that has seemed to be forgotten. I applaud you if you have to take paint of a car because if it is illegally parked then the consequences should be with the owner of the vehicle for doing the wrong thing in the first place, which strengthens my argument went it comes to an incident not caused by a motorist. if a motorist has to accept the consequences of doing something wrong, then shouldn't that same logic apply to everyone? don't get me wrong I am no pro-motorist, I have a car and a bicycle and 2 legs, so I do it all. I am pro road safety. and if someone does something wrong which causes harm or damage whether it be financial, physical or mental, then the person in the wrong should accept the consequences and liability, without prejudice to whether they are driving, cycling or walking. isn't that at the heart of road safety, for us all to make sure we are ALL safe.

Report this post »

willlie says...
4:32pm Thu 28 Feb 13

All this does is highlight what a load of maniac drivers and animal haters we have in Warrington. you should all be ashamed of yourselves. I will send my Rottweiler to bite you all !

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
5:06pm Thu 28 Feb 13

and I rest my case, thank you willie, without a clue of any circumstances, the driver gets the blame. for all we know there might have been nothing the driver could do, and you don't even know if the driver has suffered because of it too... or do all drivers set out to kill something?

Report this post »

willlie says...
5:15pm Thu 28 Feb 13

gaz hopley, it's like Brands Hatch in Warrington and the Chavs drive round in souped up cars. The owners of the animals want to start taking responsiblity as well, instead of letting them off lead and **** everywhere. It's disgusting. They should employ more dog wardens ! and traffic cops !

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
5:33pm Thu 28 Feb 13

i absolutely agree with you, if there are irresponsible drivers they should be dealt with, and so should irresponsible pedestrians and irresponsible cyclists, its just hard to show that there are other people that need to be dealt with while its the motorist getting blamed for everything. as i said earlier its the big picture that needs to be looked at and that includes pet owners, i see people walk their dogs without leads, and it makes me nervous every time i pass them even if they are on the pavement, instead of focusing on a dog on the pavement without a lead, I should be able to focus on the road ahead. it all helps. Instead of employing more dog wardens or traffic cops, which they wont do because they cant afford that and bonuses as well ha ha we have to be responsible ourselves and that is not going to happen while we have this psychological gap between who is and should be responsible without bias, personal beliefs or organisational allegiances, it will only happen if we work together as a whole and not everybody else v the motorist.

Report this post »

willlie says...
5:45pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Gaz you seem to be on the motorists side. Not everybody is having a go at the motorists. can you drive safely and adhere to speed limits and keep your pets on a lead and not let them **** everywhere ?

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
6:10pm Thu 28 Feb 13

that says more about you psychology than mine. There is no sides... thats what i am trying to get across. i am pro road safety, i am not for or against any particular group, there are plenty of idiots on the road, my point is there is not just idiot drivers, there is idiot cyclists and pedestrians and pets and children, and nothing will work until a solution is found to address it all, finding a solution to part of a problem is not solving the problem its just going to make the problem adapt. it really isn't difficult to understand.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
7:39pm Thu 28 Feb 13

gazhopley wrote:
that says more about you psychology than mine. There is no sides... thats what i am trying to get across. i am pro road safety, i am not for or against any particular group, there are plenty of idiots on the road, my point is there is not just idiot drivers, there is idiot cyclists and pedestrians and pets and children, and nothing will work until a solution is found to address it all, finding a solution to part of a problem is not solving the problem its just going to make the problem adapt. it really isn't difficult to understand.
We actually agree on quite a lot then. Good for you, it is a great summery.

Report this post »

Geoff Siddall says...
7:53pm Thu 28 Feb 13

I feel so sorry for that little girl. Clearly she is in shock and needs the attention of a Doctor and some TLC from her mother. I know how she feels after my cat was killed by a car some years ago. I picked him up of the road and buried him and my budgey that the cat had eaten some weeks before. I did not and cannot blame any car driver who happens to be driving along the road when a cat runs across and is killed or maimed or indeed any animal.

As for the comments about drivers going out of their way to hit a cat I say this. when a cat is suddenly in front of your car and you know you cant stop in time you have to second guess what the cat is thinking and what direction its going to run. You steer your car one way and see the cat quickly moving back in your way and you run the poor thing over. That may look like the driver moved to kill the cat but its all about guessing the cat’s next move wrongly.

As for the issue of parked cars well that is totally a different matter.

Report this post »

old-codger says...
8:10pm Thu 28 Feb 13

gazhopley says...
12:20pm Thu 28 Feb 13

and just to make it perfectly clear... if i was walking on bridge lane and decided to cross without looking and got hit by a motorist... IT WOULD BE MY FAULT, not the motorist... even if the car was doing 120mph i would still see it and still not cross because the law still stands that unless it is a pedestrian crossing, then the motorist, the car or indeed the traffic has right of way.”.........

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ( CATS )....

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
8:30pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Geoff Siddall wrote:
I feel so sorry for that little girl. Clearly she is in shock and needs the attention of a Doctor and some TLC from her mother. I know how she feels after my cat was killed by a car some years ago. I picked him up of the road and buried him and my budgey that the cat had eaten some weeks before. I did not and cannot blame any car driver who happens to be driving along the road when a cat runs across and is killed or maimed or indeed any animal.

As for the comments about drivers going out of their way to hit a cat I say this. when a cat is suddenly in front of your car and you know you cant stop in time you have to second guess what the cat is thinking and what direction its going to run. You steer your car one way and see the cat quickly moving back in your way and you run the poor thing over. That may look like the driver moved to kill the cat but its all about guessing the cat’s next move wrongly.

As for the issue of parked cars well that is totally a different matter.
I only knowingly hit one cat in 40 years of driving. I felt the impact on the rear off side wheel. I safely stopped the car and followed the cat to its owners address across the road from where the incident happened, fortunately the owner was in and we rushed the cat to the vets where I willingly paid the bill in full. The cat surprisingly survived a dislocated hip, and the grateful owner kept in contact and up dated me on the cats progress back to near full health.

Report this post »

old-codger says...
8:30pm Thu 28 Feb 13

I like cats, I,ve had a few in my lifetime, Two have been run over,
But I have to disagree with this (inconsiderate motorist) attitude,and always the drivers fault, I drive, I have a bicycle, I can walk, Whatever I do my eyes are open, I,m to blame for my mistakes and I dont cry (inconsiderate motorist) when I make a mistake and get tooted at. This family pet got run over and its a sad loss, But the cat or its owner must not blame the driver or his driving for his loss because sometimes it cant be helped and sometimes the driver is unaware that it has happened.

Report this post »

stupot0041 says...
8:41pm Thu 28 Feb 13

I have 2 cats and neither go out of the house. I feel very sorry for the girl but if you let your cat roam then you have to face the consequences. Thank goodness it wasn't a motorcyclist as he could have been killed hitting a stray cat.
Secondly your insurance will not pay if you swerve to avoid an animal and have a crash. (Everybody would use this excuse otherwise if they crashed because of negligence)

Report this post »

HappyMisery says...
8:44pm Thu 28 Feb 13

This is a typical letter of the "hard done by" mindset of some people. I'm sorry your daughter is upset, but you do know that accidents happen.

I'd suggest that in future, if your family have a precious pet, that they dont roam freely, but are kept in a safe environment. You can't blame drivers for cats or any other animal that wander into traffic.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
8:59pm Thu 28 Feb 13

old-codger wrote:
I like cats, I,ve had a few in my lifetime, Two have been run over,
But I have to disagree with this (inconsiderate motorist) attitude,and always the drivers fault, I drive, I have a bicycle, I can walk, Whatever I do my eyes are open, I,m to blame for my mistakes and I dont cry (inconsiderate motorist) when I make a mistake and get tooted at. This family pet got run over and its a sad loss, But the cat or its owner must not blame the driver or his driving for his loss because sometimes it cant be helped and sometimes the driver is unaware that it has happened.
Knowing the environment on the Cobbs Estate I think the death of the much loved family pet is not the only issue with regard to traffic conditions. There is an element amongst the resident who are car and van drivers who appear to have a "couldn't care less", attitude and a total disregard for any reasonable restraints, such as speed bumps and speed limits. The police do not react for every misdemeanour committed by inconsiderate motorists because they are not all way available to do that. I know that some incidents on the estate were reported to the police when they were witnessed by concerned residents and action taken.

Report this post »

Cheap Mower says...
10:21pm Thu 28 Feb 13

A cat ran out in front of me about a month ago on poplars ave, I tried to avoid it but didnt have a chance, I looked in my mirror to find it getting up and running off. I turned round at the roundabout to see how it was but it made off down an alley way.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
9:06am Fri 1 Mar 13

gazhopley wrote:
in fact the highway code says that if it is a small animal not likely to cause damage then the motorist should not take avoiding action as that could lead to an incident where greater damage can be cause, or words to that effect, its not the fact that the driver was inconsiderate but if he swerved to miss the cat he could have hit another vehicle causing a much larger incident.... unfortunately the driver did the right thing. the motorist cannot be responsible for everything and everyone else on the road.
Might be how you would read the highway cde but to de,uverately run over a cat or small dog you would have to be a sadist or a total moron or both. Not being rude but you sound a t@wt to me.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
9:12am Fri 1 Mar 13

If you live near a main road then it's probably irresponsible to let your cat out from the perspective of your cats safety. Otherwise that's the gamble cats prefer to be outdoors you need to take the assessment on where you live. If you lived on manchester road say and you let your cat out its very likely it will be run over. On a housing estate it's probably worth the chance. The letter is probably over the top a bit but any decent person who run over a cat or dog would seek help for the animal. But as we know there are some in warrington who don't have that basic decency I guess it's your DNA and how you were brought up.

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
11:23am Fri 1 Mar 13

Sankey wrote:
gazhopley wrote:
in fact the highway code says that if it is a small animal not likely to cause damage then the motorist should not take avoiding action as that could lead to an incident where greater damage can be cause, or words to that effect, its not the fact that the driver was inconsiderate but if he swerved to miss the cat he could have hit another vehicle causing a much larger incident.... unfortunately the driver did the right thing. the motorist cannot be responsible for everything and everyone else on the road.
Might be how you would read the highway cde but to de,uverately run over a cat or small dog you would have to be a sadist or a total moron or both. Not being rude but you sound a t@wt to me.
its not about deliberately running over a small animal, its about what avoiding action should or shouldnt take place, you make it sound that drivers take aim, any good driver will take avoiding action if it is safe to do so... but that is not always the case, there is nothing saying that an animal is just going to sit on a road and wait for you, especially when it comes to cats and their unique ability to run from under a parked car, leaving no time to make a safe avoidance. the choice isnt about deliberately hitting an animal, its about legally having NO other choice. if I swerved to miss a small animal, but in the process collided with oncoming traffic for example, then an excuse of avoiding a small animal in the eye of the law is no excuse, and I would be liable for that incident and stupot is right, the insurance wont cough up either, it is not just an interpretation of the highway code, it is well practised and established and not wishing to be rude but someone berating someone else for having to follow the rules even though they could lead to death and not taking into account the accepted responsibility that comes with them IS a moron and and in my books would be a t@wt.

Report this post »

gerrumonside says...
11:36am Fri 1 Mar 13

Its quite upsetting to run over an animal have some sympathy for the driver.

I felt awful when I hit a rabbit up near Daresbury.

It crossed right in front of me,and there was nothing behind me so I slammed on. I didnt feel a thud (it was a large car and a small rabbit,)I hoped the rabbit had either frozen in its tracks right in front of the car or had somehow managed to avoide my tyres and make it underneath my car either way it hadnt made it to the other side of the road.

so I reversed to check where it was hopefully to see a real life alive but terrified rabbit in the headlights..........
when i reversed crunch...!!! poor rabbit.

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
12:03pm Fri 1 Mar 13

and i hope sankey when you read these other stories about drivers who have had no choice but to hit an animal and their feelings towards it, you may understand why it is a necessary evil, and driving isnt all about seeing how much life can be extinguished, each one has told how it is a horrible experience. and mine is no different. i ran over a cat about 14 yrs ago now, during the summer, it was the first time in days that it had rained and the roads were really greasy, it was a black cat and sat with its back to me, by the time i saw it, i was on top of it, i knew with that little time and in those road conditions if i had took avoiding action the chances are i would have lost control of the car potentially causing greater damage to property or life, i had to make the decision there and then, a decision i have had to live with for 14yrs and will live with for the rest of my life, so sankey do i still sound like a sadist, or does driving a car actually come with some responsibility and some tough choices.

Report this post »

willlie says...
12:06pm Fri 1 Mar 13

We can have a cat burger, sandwich, ready meal now instead of " horsemeat " (lol) You can't beat a bit of road kill !

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
12:23pm Fri 1 Mar 13

willlie wrote:
We can have a cat burger, sandwich, ready meal now instead of " horsemeat " (lol) You can't beat a bit of road kill !
I am sure that the little child who lost her beloved pet cat would not think so! You obviously don't do empathy then!

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
12:54pm Fri 1 Mar 13

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
willlie wrote:
We can have a cat burger, sandwich, ready meal now instead of " horsemeat " (lol) You can't beat a bit of road kill !
I am sure that the little child who lost her beloved pet cat would not think so! You obviously don't do empathy then!
yeah willie that doesnt help.... think an apology is called for!

Report this post »

Sankey says...
1:12pm Fri 1 Mar 13

No obviously if you were on a busy road or an animal suddenly ran into the road then safety is the prime concern and yes standing up in court when you have killed a fellow motorist saying you swerved to avoid an animal would not stand up well. I am talking of those who deliberately kill animals or who would have no regard for killing animals. In the case of those who would do this to pets where they are loved by children or maybe the only companion of a pensioner they really are the scum of the earth.

So was not aimed at innocent motorists. The orginal poster said they were ambivalent to killing people's pets which puts them in the t@wt category in my book

Report this post »

SickAndTired2 says...
1:53pm Fri 1 Mar 13

chunkymunky wrote:
old-codger wrote:
ON Tuesday, February 19, my daughter’s pet cat was killed by an inconsiderate motorist, who probably wasn’t even paying attention to the road. ................ Your cat was on the road, You did n,t see it happen, So you dont have the right to call anyone inconsiderate or state that they probably was,nt looking at the road, I,m sorry for your daughters loss and the pain she must be feeling but that does,t give you the right to blame motorists when cats are left to roam at will, You must accept some responsibility for your cats actions, The driver may not even be aware of it if its run out from between all these parked cars, You should apologise for your accusations..
ohhh bloomin eck its the 'cats have freedom to roam' argument again we get every so often!!

if you let your cat roam on the roads either teach it to use crossings and press buttons for the little green man or risk having them run over, its quite simple!!!

As usual the cat owners take no responsibility for their own pet! its your cat....not ours!! look after the bloomin thing!!
You really do not possess an empathetic bone in your body do you, you self righteous moron.

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
2:07pm Fri 1 Mar 13

thats not what you put, but commend your backtracking sankey... am guessing you dont have a driving licence?
and anyone who was ambivalent to killing any pet is a t@wt in my book doesnt matter if they are behind the wheel or not

Report this post »

MikeJT says...
3:23pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Point 1 .....yes there are stupid drivers and more should be done to make residential roads safer. This will NOT happen with 20mph signs or when highways policies are set by people who dont live in those areas.

Point 2 re cat................a
ctually unfortunately there is no point 2. A small animal straying in the road. Driver hits animal. Driver is under no obligation to try and avoid it. As for the OPs comments about the driver not paying attention...this is obviously an emotion fuelled outburst.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
5:01pm Fri 1 Mar 13

gazhopley wrote:
thats not what you put, but commend your backtracking sankey... am guessing you dont have a driving licence?
and anyone who was ambivalent to killing any pet is a t@wt in my book doesnt matter if they are behind the wheel or not
Had a licence for 40 years mate.

Report this post »

Geoff Siddall says...
1:43pm Sat 2 Mar 13

It is very sad that on the very same day this cat was killed, 19th February 2013.
a 60 year old man was attacked by a group of 6 carrying crow bars. He was battered and left in -3 tempertures in Woolston Park. He was simply walking to work when this unprovoked attack occured. There has been no news to warn the public or request from the police to ask the public for thier help.
This cat is lucky enough to have its sad end in life reported.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
2:01pm Sat 2 Mar 13

Geoff Siddall wrote:
It is very sad that on the very same day this cat was killed, 19th February 2013.
a 60 year old man was attacked by a group of 6 carrying crow bars. He was battered and left in -3 tempertures in Woolston Park. He was simply walking to work when this unprovoked attack occured. There has been no news to warn the public or request from the police to ask the public for thier help.
This cat is lucky enough to have its sad end in life reported.
You quite obviously have not read this weeks copy of the Warrington guardian then! It's in there for sure Geoff, bottom -left of page five.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
2:09pm Sat 2 Mar 13

gazhopley wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
willlie wrote:
We can have a cat burger, sandwich, ready meal now instead of " horsemeat " (lol) You can't beat a bit of road kill !
I am sure that the little child who lost her beloved pet cat would not think so! You obviously don't do empathy then!
yeah willie that doesnt help.... think an apology is called for!
I agree that they should, but they probably won't proffer any kind of apology what so ever, it doesn't seem to be something they acquired in their upbringing! Although they have the opportunity to prove me wrong.

Report this post »

Mikeywire says...
2:15pm Sat 2 Mar 13

I seriously doubt anybody going about their daily routines using the road starts up their car and thinks "Mmm i think i'll run over a little girls pet cat today"...Get real... Cats and dogs run into roads a lot i've seen it countless times and its happened to me..Thankfully i haven't hit one yet.. Sadly it will happen if cats and dogs roam the streets...

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
2:32pm Sat 2 Mar 13

Well, I see that it is you that has just introduced this point into these comments. I don't recall anyone else suggesting it. It seems to be commonly accepted that if a cat gets killed whilst attempting to cross a road and is perfectly understandable although often thought regrettable by many people. If you collide with a dog, don't you have to report it to the Police or did that go out with the dog licence when that, was withdrawn?

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
2:55pm Sat 2 Mar 13

dogs still have to be reported, along with livestock and working animals, i think dogs are still classed as a working animal... i think, dont quote me

Report this post »

MikeJT says...
8:47am Sun 3 Mar 13

gazhopley wrote:
dogs still have to be reported, along with livestock and working animals, i think dogs are still classed as a working animal... i think, dont quote me
IIRC..that is correct. Some of the traffic rules go back to the days when motoring started and I think this one is one of them. It was retained to protect useful animals and livestock in rural areas.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
10:15am Sun 3 Mar 13

gazhopley wrote:
dogs still have to be reported, along with livestock and working animals, i think dogs are still classed as a working animal... i think, dont quote me
I agree it does seem reasonable and these animals are usually kept secure or are so obedient that they stay where they are supposed to be, with reference to working dogs. Cat owners in general seem not to know how far from their home their cat will patrol looking for birds, mice, rats and other small animals it can catch, often for its own amusement and not for food. They can wander within a mile radius sometimes further depending on the environment.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
10:23am Sun 3 Mar 13

gazhopley wrote:
and I rest my case, thank you willie, without a clue of any circumstances, the driver gets the blame. for all we know there might have been nothing the driver could do, and you don't even know if the driver has suffered because of it too... or do all drivers set out to kill something?
Some do without even thinking about it. The lapses in road safety are reported and are testimony to that fact. Undue care and attention is so often the cause of road accidents. They may not set out to kill something but it does happen.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
10:37am Sun 3 Mar 13

willlie wrote:
All this does is highlight what a load of maniac drivers and animal haters we have in Warrington. you should all be ashamed of yourselves. I will send my Rottweiler to bite you all !
I agree to some extent with your first sentence, but in your second do you have to display your criminal threats and intentions, although this could be a jestorial comment.

Report this post »

willlie says...
12:44pm Sun 3 Mar 13

I've told you SAC, i am deadly serious. The biggest criminals are the press, police, judges and authority. Be careful my Rottweiler is on the prowl for some food !

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
12:51pm Sun 3 Mar 13

willlie wrote:
I've told you SAC, i am deadly serious. The biggest criminals are the press, police, judges and authority. Be careful my Rottweiler is on the prowl for some food !
have you any idea what the R.S.P.C.A will do to you even if you are joking? and the real criminals are those who don't accept responsibility for their own actions... the bullies and and the self righteous, those who think others have to do more so they don't have to, those who want to blame anyone else rather than themselves.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
2:02pm Sun 3 Mar 13

willlie wrote:
And my name is " Big Willie and not Little Willie ! " I won't have people coming on here and telling the whole world i have a little penis !
Now willlie In that case take your metaphorical condom off your head and put it on the the organ it was designed for. You appear to be talking from within your own little world again.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
2:09pm Sun 3 Mar 13

willlie wrote:
And my name is " Big Willie and not Little Willie ! " I won't have people coming on here and telling the whole world i have a little penis !
I'll have no problem with the, and managing its behaviour, in that I am an experienced Dog whisperer. I like Chieftain Rottweilers in particular, a great dog and are easily trained.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
2:12pm Sun 3 Mar 13

willlie wrote:
And my name is " Big Willie and not Little Willie ! " I won't have people coming on here and telling the whole world i have a little penis !
Don't worry to much as size will not matter one jot it's the ability to use it appropriately that makes the difference, I can assure you.

Report this post »

willlie says...
12:54pm Mon 4 Mar 13

do the press, police, judges, authority take responsibility for there corrupt actions - the answer is no !

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
1:47pm Mon 4 Mar 13

willlie wrote:
do the press, police, judges, authority take responsibility for there corrupt actions - the answer is no !
If they were to use your fairy-tale definition then undoubtedly be a no, however they work to the current set of laws. If any of those people whom you suggested does commits an unlawful act then they will suffer the consequences of their actions like everyone else and in exceptional cases even more serious punishments are handed out.

Report this post »

gazhopley says...
2:39pm Mon 4 Mar 13

willlie wrote:
do the press, police, judges, authority take responsibility for there corrupt actions - the answer is no !
do you take responsibility as being a pet owner when you say your going to set your dog on people?....NO, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, how can you possibly comment on responsibility. you are just making yourself look stupid.

Report this post »

cheshirecheesy says...
12:37am Wed 6 Mar 13

oh the cat has the right to roam???...my dog comes out of the house to do her last business..usually a wee and even if it wasnt id pick it up..but we have cats on all side of us...my dog who is only 5 months old like to bark at these cats...they in turn like to stick their paws up at her in the guise of a 2 fingered salute...what do we do we bring the dog in and scold her for barking...in case it upsets the neighbours whos cats are walking willy nilly all over the garden...of course i feel for the little girl..the said cat is a replacement for one that my neighbour lost a couple of years ago..after it was run over outside our home on lovely lane ..we wrapped it up in a pillow case and told the family... which i might point out i cried more at having to scrape said cats brains of the road and took my own life in my hands to do so ...i also having to live on a main road that my garden gate comes directly onto the pavement have countless times walked in to the path of a cyclist who is speeding along the pavement..as is their right...not..so who is to blame...well i say mankind for inventing the wheel...having said that ive also narrowly avoided injury by mums with prams children on skateboards and rollerskates and walkers in a rush....**** u people...i would live on a mountain...but there is the weather and walkers to contend with!!!...and last but not least id like to thank the dog walker that late at night thinks its ok for their dog to crap on the pavement right outside the gate also...a very dangerous practice that resulted in my 7 yr old standing in the remains of a giant doggy dinner pooped by clifford the big red dog in his brand new school shoes!!! was that his fault for not being awake properly at that time of the morning...or can we blame the tidal elements as it still wasnt quite light...moral of this story is...that it doesnt take much for mankind to live peaceably together....however.
..humans are lazy and dirty and quick to moan,,,so deal with it!!!

Report this post »

richiepooh says...
12:19pm Mon 11 Mar 13

I hope you take better care of YOUR daughter than you did of YOUR cat. cats are known for their agility, mobility and speed perception, two ton vehicles secondarily controled by humans are not, which is why we have lessons, tests, MOTs and laws to ensure we do the best we can with them. Thank god the driver didnt swerver and put their own lives,passengers, other road users or pedestrians at risk because you have a flippant attitude on your own responsibilities. and had the driver have been me who despite what you may think is an animal lover I would have sued you for the meotional distress you casused me by allowing your animal to put me at risk, feel emotional and possibly damage to my property.

Report this post »

Sadeyedlowlandboy says...
11:32am Fri 15 Mar 13

Obviously old-codger has never had a pet of his own. And no children. What an unsympathetic tiring person you are.

Report this post »

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