Taxi Driver Online

Thought this was a real hatchet job at first - reads like the taxi driver was actually a vet who could have saved the dog if only he'd stopped

But I hadn't quite got the fact that the claim was that if the driver had simply braked and stopped after the collision then the dog might have only suffered limited injuries.

But having looked at stopping distances and the like, the evidence suggests he maybe did well to stop within 40 feet.

Heartbroken family's appeal after dog 'dragged 40ft under wheels of taxi'

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... g-15209803

'Adorable' Bear had to be put to sleep due to 'catastrophic' injuries



A heartbroken Redcar family is appealing for witnesses after claims their pet dog was dragged under the wheels of a taxi.

“Adorable” spaniel-terrier cross, Bear, received “catastrophic” injuries and had to be put to sleep after the incident, which happened on Tuesday on Sandsend Road in the town.

Bear was in his garden on Runswick Avenue but “jumped the little wall in a second”, before being hit by the car and dragged 40 feet.

The driver then left, it is claimed.

His devastated owners have warned it could “so easily have been a child.”

Bear suffered horrific injuries; his front and back legs were broken in several places and he sustained severe chest injury, internal bleeding and a severe head trauma.

“Heartbroken” Jodie Jackson said the footage had been handed to police but the family did not want to release it in case their children saw - as it was “too graphic”.

She said: “Bear was the friendliest little thing, more like a little boy than a dog.

“He was my mum’s dog but the whole family absolutely adored him.

“He used to play hide and seek with the kids; he was their best friend, they’re absolutely heartbroken.

“The main thing is, if the taxi driver could have stopped, they could have saved him.

“They just kept driving - and it’s the after-effects that have killed him, not the initial impact.

“Not only were they breaking the speed limit, they were on the wrong side of the road and failed to stop.

“There were no obstructions, no reason for them to be on the wrong side of the road.

“This could so easily have been a child who, at that speed, wouldn’t have stood a chance either.”



A post Facebook post by Bear’s owner, Jackie Goldsborough, has been shared more than 900 times and received 500 comments.

She told Teesside Live: “We got him to a vet and eight people tried to save him, but his little body was too broken and he had to leave us.

“Please can anyone help find this person responsible, it could have easily a child.”

The incident happened between 11.15am and 11.30am on Tuesday, September 25 and is said to have involved a blue Octavia taxi.

Cleveland Police confirmed it has received a report of the incident.

So what was Bear doing in a garden with a *little wall* beside a road that he could jump in a second?

Seems like evidence in driver's favour, not against him



I'm saying nothing



So they had a speed gun on him then? Or media acting as judge and jury?



No doubt he swerved across the road when he saw the dog so that he could be hung, drawn and quartered by the press

Article says dog was dragged 40 feet. Even at 20 mph that's the stopping distance. At 30 mph it's nearly double that. So if the driver was speeding as claimed...

In fact it's possibly articles like this that make people drive on after such incidents - they know they can't win.

About 25 years ago i was in a nearby village following another car along one of the main roads in the village there was a cat at the side of the road with a woman and child stood opposite trying to call the cat over to them. Car in front passed at about 30mph I slowed just in case then at point black range the cat decided to bolt across the road and hit the underside of my engine.

Anyway to cut a long story short I was accused of driving like a maniac threatened with prosecution by the RSPCA had numerous people phone up threatening me etc. etc. letters sent to the papers complaint to council an entire army of relatives going round town telling people not use our evil taxi service.

All because the woman was calling her cat and caused it to run under my car BUT classic guilt transference meant I had to be blamed hung drawn and quartered so she did not

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

They lost a dog they clearly loved.

But not everything that happens needs to be blamed on a cab driver.

_________________
IDFIMH

Taxi driver hit family pet with his car, dragged him along the road then drove off

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/tees ... t-16073884

The little dog named Bear had to be put to sleep after the horrific accident in Redcar


Image: Andrew Cooper/Teeside Live

A taxi driver hit a much-loved pet dog, dragged him along the street for 40 yards then left him for dead, a court heard.

The 12-month-old family pet named Bear collided with Andrew Feeney's taxi on Sandsend Road in Redcar.

Upsetting CCTV footage shown at Teesside Magistrates' Court showed the little black and white dog dog "pinned" to the front of Feeney's taxi.

After it drops to the floor, Feeney then makes off in his Elite Taxis vehicle. The stricken animal can then be seen lying on its back kicking its legs as people rushed to help.

The spaniel cross Bedlington terrier was taken to a vet but his injuries were so severe he had to be put to sleep. The vet said he would have likely survived if the taxi had stopped straight after hitting him.

Prosecutor Ann Mitchell told the court how Bear's owner had been mowing the lawn shortly after 11am on September 25 last year when the dog clambered over the front garden wall.

The owner watched him disappear down Runswick Avenue on to Sandsend Road but as he went to retrieve him, he saw Bear pinned to the front of the taxi.

A Royal Mail postal worker on the street at the time said she had heard "a loud bang" then saw the taxi which "seemed to speed up".

"About 40 yards on I saw the animal laid in the road with his legs in the air," she said.

"The taxi had not slowed at all, in fact I thought it had sped up.

"The driver must have known he had hit something as the sound was loud in the post van which had the windows up and doors shut".

Bear's owner said their ordeal had a "massive" emotional impact on the family.

His partner had struggled to come to terms with the loss of their pet and criticised him for allowing the dog to be in the garden. They had ended up separating over their differences, he said.

In a statement he said: "I not only lost my beloved dog but my partner and mother of my six children."


Image: Andrew Cooper/Teeside Live

Feeney, who had no previous convictions, denied failing to stop after a road accident and failing to report it.

But he was found guilty of the offences after a trial on Wednesday.

When interviewed by police, Feeney agreed he had driven along the road but said he did not hit the dog and was only aware of the incident as he had been accused on Facebook.

Hours after hitting Bear, he had taken the Skoda Octavia to be repaired and told the mechanic the damage to the front had been caused after hitting a cat.

However, the mechanic, with 18 years' experience in professional bodywork restoration, said it was unlikely that such damage could have been caused by a cat.

Defending, Sarah Lish had suggested the officer investigating should have inspected other cars as there were other taxis of a similar description.

But the court heard Feeney's taxi had five "distinctive" stickers on the side which could be seen clearly on the footage.

The magistrates said it was "inconceivable" that any other person could have been responsible for the accident.

They fined Feeney £962 and added eight penalty points to his licence.

Defending, Sarah Lish had suggested the officer investigating should have inspected other cars as there were other taxis of a similar description.

But the court heard Feeney's taxi had five "distinctive" stickers on the side which could be seen clearly on the footage.

The magistrates said it was "inconceivable" that any other person could have been responsible for the accident.

They fined Feeney £962 and added eight penalty points to his licence.

Had to be a reason why he didn’t react/stop. He got what he deserved. I’d like to see a prosecution for animal cruelty now.

If the dog had been kept under control and secured in it's owners garden it would never have been in the road in a position where it was likely to be run over..............Don't blame the unfortunate driver for an incident none of which was of their making.

Though leaving the scene as a tad brutal.

I doubt the driver could have avoided the accident. The thing he did wrong was fail to stop

I think the dogs owners need to be investigated over their role in this i.e. not keeping the dog securely in their garden

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

There is an offence "Not keeping a dog under control" which the owners have falling foul of.

I’m not defending the dog owners at all, they have been responsible for the death of their dog and I think that is punishment enough. But as for this callous scumbag who didn’t even have the decency to stop (he knew he’d hit something but thought it was a cat??), I have nothing but contempt for him. Had he stopped and showed even an ounce of compassion I wouldn’t have blamed him for claiming compensation for the damage to his vehicle off the dogs owners (he could have possibly claimed through pet insurance or their house insurance) at a later date.

Don't think the fact he didn't stop demonstrates that he's a 'callous scumbag' without 'an ounce of compassion'. In fact, possible that it demonstrates quite the reverse, because suspect reason he didn't stop was because he knew he'd be considered in the wrong irrespective of whether his driving had actually been the cause of the accident.

Which was perhaps underlined by the article at the time, which was typical 'trial by media' stuff, which blamed the driver (hence my slightly sarcastic thread title at the time), whereas there's no suggestion from the report of the prosecution and court case that the driver was in any way at fault for the accident - his crime was simply not stopping/reporting the incident (if it *had* been a cat he would have been under no obligation to report it, but whether he genuinely thought it was a cat or not we'll probably never know, but obviously the court thought he was lying in that regard and must have known it was a dog).

So suspect he's actually being punished for hitting the dog rather than the actual crimes he's been prosecuted for. And no word of how his taxi badge might be affected.

But don't know why he didn't just plead guilty and say that he panicked, there was nothing he could do and just couldn't face the owners etc, in which case I suspect the punishment might have been pretty lenient - he's also effectively being punished for his dishonesty rather than simply because he failed to stop.

And as regards the callousness, if he'd hit a wooden crate that had been blown into the road (say), then it's almost certain he would have stopped to assess the damage. So don't see why failing to stop after hitting an animal demonstrates that he's callous. More likely that he failed to stop because it was an animal rather than a wooden crate because he knew that hitting an animal will have consequences for other people, rather than a lack of compassion for the animal.