Proposals for Addressing Cat Welfare on UK Roads

Sign the petition here.

You may well have seen quite a number of petitions over the years each asking that cats are treated 'the same as dogs' and the Government implement laws requiring drivers stop and report it when they hit a cat. If you hit a dog with your car, you must report the incident to the police under the Road Traffic Act 1988. People feel aggrieved that dogs are protected by law, yet it's perfectly legal to hit a cat and drive on leaving a cat scared, alone, in pain, or dead, roadside. We know this is wrong and we want change. The hundreds of thousands of people that sign the petitions when they go live know its wrong and want change. Even the vast majority of politicians we speak to know it's wrong and would like to see change. So why does nothing ever happen? This blog will outline exactly where it has previously been going wrong and highlight what can be done about it, as well as shedding a bit of light on our petition which is slightly different to others before it. Change is needed and we at CatsMatter tirelessly campaign for better welfare rights for cats on UK roads with our primary goal being to make it illegal to leave the scene of a collision with a cat.

Why have cats never been added to the Road Traffic Act?

Public outcry for a change in law to protect cats stems back years, and each previous petition we looked at from over the years had well over 100,000 signatures in support. This is an issue you will have seen raised every so often and it's something many people in the country want action on. We wanted to discover why all these petitions had failed, and why Governments had never acted.

We found that all previous campaigns asked that cats be added to the Road Traffic Act, ultimately asking cats to be treated the exact same as dogs. However, asking that cats be included in the Road Traffic Act was perhaps a misunderstanding of how the current laws work, and it soon became clear why Governments had taken things so far but ultimately failed to back such an amendment in a Bill's later stages.

The Road Traffic Act is designed to put an onus of responsibility on the owner of the animal (dog, sheep, cow etc) so, should the animal cause an accident, the owner of the animal can be held liable for endangering motorists. Cats cannot and should not be 'tacked' on to the act alongside dogs as it will be rendered useless by the fact that cats are free agents. Amendments to include cats to the Road Traffic Act would not be practical, and could not be supported on the grounds that it would bring unnecessary burden to police. Achieving a result of cats being added to the Road Traffic Act is just not simple or practical in reality. Including cats to the list of animals in the existing Road Traffic Act would also bring with it unnecessary burden on owners in terms of controlling their cats, and on the police who would be obliged to attend incidents. Such a change in legislation would neither respect the nature of cats to roam without liability, nor provide any additional welfare protection as the police are not in the position to offer veterinary care or track owners.

Is there another way cats can have protections on our roads?

We believe so! Applying the same law to cats as dogs wouldn't work, but that's not to say a different type of law wouldn't work even better and give cats even greater protections.

The outcome we ultimately seek is that motorists be made aware of their responsibilities to report an accident so that veterinary care can be provided as soon as possible, and records are made so that the owners can be reunited with their cat. At present neither the Highway

Code nor the Road Traffic Act provide for any direct action to be taken in the event of an accident involving a cat beyond a brief advisory. We believe for any meaningful action to be taken, the changes must put the welfare of cats and their owners at the centre of the legislation and avoid unnecessary burdensome bureaucracy or liabilities over the control of cats, as well as limiting police intervention. When statistics show a cat is hit every two and half minutes in the UK, MPs would never back legislation that would require police attending these incidents in times of our force already being understaffed and overstretched.

We do not want legislation that penalises drivers for hitting a cat when driving, unless of course it was intentional which would be an offence under Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act, along with criminal damage. Drivers would only be liable should they fail to stop after the incident. Making hits illegal overall would be counterproductive for the right of roam reasons as mentioned above, as well as drivers being extremely unlikely to report an incident which would mean they are admitting a crime which they could be financially penalised for. This would damage the very thing we are aiming to achieve with this, that cats are given medical attention as soon as possible. If we had legislation making hits illegal overall, it would likely result in even more drivers fleeing the scene. Legislation must be for those that flee the scene only, which also takes away the ambiguity in some of the cases we have known where police have attempted to prosecute and have been dismissed by CPS.

What do CatsMatter propose?

After much research, we have discovered appropriate and workable ways to implement such legislation, but additional legislation would need to be created written specifically for the cat. Creating a law that fits the desired outcome perfectly where cats best be protected and catered for within the available legislative instruments complimenting the current available legislation. We conclude that the most appropriate option would be a suitable amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Section 5 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 acknowledges cats feel pain and have similar pain threshold to people. Section 4 outline persons should keep animals from unnecessary suffering/pain. An amendment of the inclusion of cats specifically in terms of road accident reporting on the Animal Welfare Act would allow veterinary care to be provided as soon as possible. This would support existing provisions of the Animal Welfare Act because it acknowledges cats feel pain from such incidents and states persons should avoid unnecessary suffering and ensure their actions do not cause an animal to suffer. It is more than fair to say that, in the event of a collision with a cat, the driver would know that unnecessary suffering and harm would be inflicted by leaving the cat for dead. For a driver to hit a cat and leave the animal injured, this would constitute as knowingly allowing them to unnecessary suffering, a section 4 offence. The Act states an offence has been committed if persons fail to act causing the animal to suffer and the suffering was unnecessary, which would be caused by fleeing the scene leaving the injured cat. Considerations in the Act that is relevant is the statement that the person is to determine whether the suffering is unnecessary and whether suffering could have been avoided or reduced, which drivers ought to reasonably know that their failure to act would leave them to unnecessarily suffer and pain could have been avoided or reduced had their stopped the cat and sought help for the cat straight away.

The domesticated cat should be an animal which is given every opportunity for treatment. According to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, cats are regarded as property. Killing or injuring a cat then should justify legal proceedings under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. This Act states that a person is guilty of an offence if they destroy or damage property with intent or being reckless, and with intent or being reckless as to endanger life S.1(2). Many cases of hit and runs have been received by police but, of those taken forward since it is not yet a legal requirement to stop and report incidents, must be proven to have occurred with intent, which is the difficult part to prove. Even with accompanying CCTV in previous cases we have known, CPS always throw it out because it is not illegal to stop if you hit a cat and the only way a prosecution could take place is if intent could be proved. CatsMatter wants to make leaving the scene the crime which would take away all ambiguity in these cases and allow police to prosecute reckless drivers in these cases.

It is understandable that cats will inevitably fall victim to the roads where a driver has accidently hit one through no fault of his/her own. We completely acknowledge that accidents happen and could happen to any of us at any time. In the eyes of the law, this would be classed as having a lawful excuse as not to be prosecuted under the Criminal Damage Act as, speaking in terms of criminal damage legislation, the driver would have lawful excuse to destroy or damage property endangering life (section 5:2) as there was no intent to endanger life. A driver could easily prove this by the driver stopping and following the requirements of section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and fulfilled their duties of care to the injured cat. Prosecution proceedings are justifiable under this law based on the supposed intent assumed of the driver should the driver not to stop to seek help. An offence would not necessarily be regarding the manor of driving (there are other laws for that) but failing to inform of the collision. This would be the same as any other failing to report an offence.

Who would drivers report incidents to?

The police could understandably not support this change unless there was some sort of procedure in place that made police interaction limited and they were a final resort. The police should only be involved should the other options not be available, which is highly unlikely. We understand our proposal could not be approved if there is an impression that this new law would cause an increased pressure on the police, so it should be made clear the advised points of contact. The primary authorities for notification should be either the owner, a veterinarian, council waste disposal teams or a rescue shelter. Although the list is broad, we will get in to why in a moment. The police not being the notifying body should be publicly stated so as not to cause confusion between persons with dog legislation. This would be an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act and not the Road Traffic Act and cat reports will be different to dog incidents and the way they are reported.

There would be an offence of failing to notify the authority but would swerve to dispel people’s fears that they may incriminate themselves if they could simply talk to the shelters, council or owners, to fulfil their duty by law. Rule 286 of the Highway Code does make a note that if drivers are involved in a collision which causes injury to an animal or property the driver must stop and give details to anyone having reasonable grounds for requiring them. This complements our suggestion of drivers stopping and giving details to the relevant advised authority. To back this up further, the police have publicly advised drivers to report any accident involving an animal and enquiries to ascertain the owner of domestic animals are advised of the situation. In

theory, all the above will be enforced in the new legislation as the current advisory action is clearly not making any difference.

What would happen to drivers failing to stop?

The above may sound complicated in theory, but there are numerous places around the world that have adopted a very similar approach and which have been deemed a complete success.

In Jersey drivers are required to notify owners or the national charity who will use an ambulance to collect cats off the road. Failure to report is punishable by fine and/or 6 months imprisonment.

Hong Kong law requires drivers to stop the vehicle if they hit any cat or dog so that the injured cats and dogs can receive timely medical treatment. A driver failing to stop after an accident is liable to a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for 12 months.

In India drivers must report incidents where they have hit a cat. Persons witnessing the failure to stop are advised to get the cat medical treatment then report the registration to a police station following getting the cat medical help. Punishment for the driver is a fine of Rs 2000 and/or a jail term of up to five years.

Another is New York where the law requires persons operating a motor vehicle which strikes and injures a cat shall stop and endeavour to locate the owner or a police or judicial officer in the vicinity. Violations are punishable in the form of a fine.

So when we hear Government officials saying ''it won't work'', all these other countries have proved it does!

Very Similar to New York Law, it would be logical to punish persons failing to stop with a fine. Under Section 30 of the Animal Welfare Act as it gives power to a local authority in England and Wales to prosecute proceedings for any offence under this Act. Earlier we pointed out that drivers not stopping would be in violation of section 4 of the Act. It would be under this that local councils could issue the fine. Drivers being punishable by fine made payable to the local council would be beneficial in today’s climate as an additional funding source, which in its self would act as a deterrent for those dismissing cat welfare on roads, along with the natural promotion of vigilant driving within urban areas.

In the case of hitting a cat, persons should be advised to pull up in the first safe convenient place without obstructing traffic further or causing a hazard to others. By leaving the animal in the road indefinitely it could also cause other drivers to swerve or break sharply. For it to be

compulsory drivers stop, arrangements with the advised authority who would deal with the situation would be swiftly made and the best efforts could proceed for the welfare of the cat and other drivers. Drivers should first check for a collar with access to its owner. Failing that, a local veterinarian should be the next port of call as they will be able to identify if a chip is present and make arrangements with the owner for medical treatment and reunification.

In terms of cost, a driver would not be liable for any costs incurred and veterinarians could not demand such funds from the reporting driver. Making drivers liable beyond leaving the scene would be counterproductive in terms of reporting and in the cat getting help as drivers would not want to take injured cats to a vet if they believed they would have to foot the bill. The cost would be the responsibility of the owner should further treatment be needed. We have spoken to many cat owners over the course of our campaign and all of them agree they have no qualms in paying for treatment should the worst happen, the main hope for them is that attempts are made to save their cat. Asking for a law that is feasible, fair and gives cats the best chance of survival and owners least resistance to such protections for their cat, we must suggest that cat owners would be financial responsible for treatment, unless of course the driver was prosecuted for other driving offences in that specific case - such as speeding or intent to endanger life.

There may be a small number of cats still not microchipped, although numbers have drastically reduced following the Compulsory Microchipping legislation. Given veterinarians already have an obligation to administer pain relief, the small numbers expected to be found without a microchip would fall under the already set out rules when an injured animal is taken to a vets.

Our proposals so far are referring solely to cats that are still alive following the incident because it is most important that these cats receive help immediately and are given the best chance. With statistics showing 75% of cats survive the initial hit, those alive make up a majority and they should be the ones the law focuses mostly on. However, it should also include those sadly deceased on impact both for the sake of their owners who deserve to be notified, as well as to not give drivers a loophole they could use to flee the scene. In the event that the cat is instantly killed, drivers can still report to owners, vets, a local rescue or scan group, or the council. Currently it is already the council's street cleaning team’s duties to collect roadkill from the side of the road as soon as possible so as not to cause obstruction further to traffic. Any objection to a potential slight increase in workload is offset by the gains made from being the body authorised to issue fines.

The focus of the Government is to make roads safer for all users which in turn reduces the risk to animals. However, in busy urban areas there is little effort made for the safety of companion animals and we believe bringing in this new requirement for drivers would be effective in causing extra caution to driver’s actions knowing the government take domestic pet deaths seriously.