A dog trembles on the edge of Tuen Mun Highway, surrounded by a rushing stream of vehicles, with the car that hit it long gone from sight. According to current laws, the driver may bear no specific consequences for their actions.

In this bustling international metropolis, companion animals have become essential members of countless families. However, a harsh reality exists: when cats and dogs are involved in traffic accidents, the current Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) provides them with significant legal gaps in protection. As the year 2019 saw a peak in societal concern for animal welfare, reviewing and amending this outdated law has become an urgent legislative agenda.

The existing law only stipulates that drivers must stop if they hit farm animals such as horses, cows, donkeys, mules, sheep, pigs, or goats. This protection list, rooted in past agricultural society thinking, glaringly excludes cats and dogs—the most common companion animals. This legal oversight is severely disconnected from the status and emotional value of cats and dogs in modern Hong Kong society, implicitly conveying a wrong message: their lives and safety are not worthy of special legal attention.

Fortunately, a transformative opportunity has arisen. In 2019, the Hong Kong government launched a three-month public consultation to comprehensively amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, receiving enthusiastic societal feedback. This extensive discourse on animal welfare provides an excellent social atmosphere and public foundation to re-evaluate all related laws, including the Road Traffic Ordinance. We must seize this moment to push for targeted legal amendments that pave a safer path for our furry family members.

The Legal Gaps and Moral Dilemmas in Existing Laws

The essence of law is to reflect societal core values and respect for life. The current Road Traffic Ordinance, which only requires drivers to stop for farm livestock while remaining silent on similar incidents involving cats and dogs, creates a profound inequality in the value of life. Such differential treatment lacks compelling justification.

In practical terms, this means that when a driver hits a cat or dog, even if the animal is clearly injured and in need of urgent care, the driver has no legal obligation to stop. This not only delays potential lifesaving treatment but also deprives opportunities to hold individuals accountable for harming animals. For pet owners, the loss of a pet is already agonizing enough, and the lack of legal protection leaves them with no recourse. For society, this invisibly fosters an attitude of indifference towards animal lives, contradicting Hong Kong’s aspirations as a civilized and compassionate society.

The Core of the Amendment: Extending “Duty of Care” to the Roads

The central spirit of the 2019 public consultation is to elevate animal protection from a passive “prevention of cruelty” to an active “welfare guarantee,” introducing a “duty of care” for pet owners. This principle should equally apply to road users. Amending the Road Traffic Ordinance to require drivers to stop after hitting cats and dogs embodies the implementation of society’s “duty of care” towards animals in public transport contexts.

This amendment should encompass several key elements:

• Expanding the Definition of “Animal”: Clearly include cats and dogs in the scope of the ordinance alongside horses and cows, granting them equal legal attention.
• Clarifying Driver Responsibilities: Mandate that drivers must stop safely after an incident involving cats and dogs, following similar reporting procedures as those for accidents involving other animals or property damages (e.g., providing personal details or notifying the police).
• Establishing Reasonable Penalties: Set deterrent penalties for hit-and-run incidents to denote the legal system’s rejection of such behaviors, correlating the severity of penalties with the potential damage caused, such as serious injury or death of the animal.

Addressing Concerns and Balancing Interests

Any legal amendment requires careful consideration. Some may worry that mandating stops in high-speed areas could endanger the safety of drivers and other road users. In response, the amendment can specify that drivers must stop only when it is “safe to do so.” If immediate safe stopping isn’t feasible, drivers should pull over safely as soon as practicable and report the incident. This approach safeguards the right to rescue animals while also prioritizing road safety.

Additionally, the government should concurrently enhance supportive measures, such as installing warning signs in high-animal-traffic areas and conducting public education initiatives to inform drivers about the new regulations and response procedures. Protecting animal welfare and maintaining public safety are not mutually exclusive; they can be balanced through well-designed laws and public education efforts.

Conclusion: This Is More Than Just a Legal Amendment; It’s a Civilizational Test

By 2019, Hong Kong society has demonstrated strong consensus for enhancing animal welfare through widespread discussions. Including cats and dogs under the protection of the Road Traffic Ordinance is a crucial piece of the progressive puzzle that must be completed.

Though this amendment may seem like a technical adjustment, its implications are profound. It marks the official acknowledgment by our legal system of the inherent life value and emotional bonds associated with companion animals, deserving serious treatment within the rules of public spaces. It compels every road user to assume both moral and legal responsibilities toward these voiceless companions.

We urge legislators, government officials, and all sectors of society to seize the current momentum for legislative reform and actively push forward this long-overdue amendment. Let us demonstrate through action that Hong Kong is not only an efficient business hub but also a civilized society where every life is respected and cared for. No more should the momentum of law lag behind the lives that fall by the wayside.