Harsh?

[Amadeus]

Tragic case, a couple of beautiful children died.

A guy went through a red light, hit another car (which was I believe just at the speed at which one would get prosecuted) which in turn hit the kids and killed them.
The guy has died (unrelated to this incident) but the driver of the second car is now being prosecuted.

There but for the grace of God...

[Grant66]

So the guy being prosecuted was hit by somebody who illegally went through a red light? And he was speeding at the time.

If he hadn't been speeding would the children now be dead? If the answer is no, then yes he deserves to be prosecuted.

If my kids had been killed as a result of a collision between two vehicles breaking the law, I'd expect somebody to answer for it. So not harsh IMO.

[Amadeus]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572989/Woman-BMW-driver-killed-two-toddlers-ploughing-pushchairs-crashing-car-distracted-phone-call.html

That's basically it.
The person who was hit (a woman) was doing 36 in a 30 limit.
My understanding is that if the guy hadn't gone through the red light and hit her, she'd not have hit the kids, whether she was speeding or not. Thus in my mind, speed was not a factor in their deaths.
Oh, something I didn't mention (because I forgot!) was that she was apparently distracted by her hands-free phone, by how much I don't know. In my opinion, they should be banned entirely from cars (tho I appreciate that may not be considered practical).

[Biker Biggles]

Who has'nt ever done 36 in a 30? Be honest now.I certainly have so there but for the grace of god indeed.

[Owenski]

Reading the mail report she sounds like she deserves the time. Driving dangerously and clearly not cut out for it. Poor obs ultimatly killed those kids im happy for everyone who crashes due to poor obs to be removed from the highways perminantly.

[Fallout]

I would comment but the article is in the daily mail and therefore most likely just made up. I hear sometimes when there's nothing to report they just play GTA and report on what happens there. That's how they claim the events weren't made up. Clever.

[Specialone]

I doubt speed was the only issue, it's used to apportion blame too much, you could argue if she was doing 50, the accident wouldnt have happened either as she would've been already past the spot.

I'm really not sure what to believe or feel about this tbh

[DJ123]

I doubt speed was the only issue, it's used to apportion blame too much, you could argue if she was doing 50, the accident wouldnt have happened either as she would've been already past the spot.

I'm really not sure what to believe or feel about this tbh

It has that 'what if' scenario to it as you say. EOTD it happened, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[wyrdness]

BBC News version of the story, for those with an allergy to the Daily Fail - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26439101

There's probably more to this than gets reported, but sounds like she was shunted into the kids. Now it's up to the jury to decide guilt.

[Fallout]

Having read up on it now, it sounds like she is guilty of some form of negligence. Sounds like she was distracted and if she wasn't distracted she probably would've taken avoiding action/braked, but because she was on her phone and speeding she couldn't react in time.

I strongly believe you have to consider a car a dangerous weapon. I know this is cliche but it's true. If you don't see controlling a 1 ton block of metal within feet of pedestrians as a responsibility comparable with firing a gun, then you don't have the mental capacity to responsibly drive a car. If she wasn't treating her journey with that level of responsibility and she killed some kids she deserves to be punished.

Not claiming to be perfect. I lose concentration all the time, but I still hold this belief. Fear for my liberty is probably the main reason I stick to 30s and 40s and pay close attention to pedestrians. Don't give a **** about them; I just don't want to go to jail.

[21QUEST]

It does sound like , she's definitely has a case to answer.....

Another thing I'd say is, if the calculation are correct, surely, you've got to be doing something wrong to be unable to stop from 36 metres away, when lights have gone amber. Or just a plain stupid....

[Red Herring]

Who has'nt ever done 36 in a 30? Be honest now.I certainly have so there but for the grace of god indeed.

Through a set of traffic lights in a built up area, regardless of what colour they are? There is a lot of information that goes into what is and isn't an appropriate speed so it would be wrong to reach any conclusion on the information we have available (I guess that's why we have trials) but I suspect there is a bit more to this than simply her speed.

[yorkie_chris]

Overtook a van to blast through an amber light, while on phone.

If nothing else she's been proudly upholding the standards of BMW drivers everywhere, string her up.

[Luckypants]

Not harsh, there appears to be a case to answer and the trial will hear the evidence to decide if she was unlucky or at fault.

[Amadeus]

Yes, I think when each of the points various members have picked out (incl. being a BMW driver - thanks YC!) does throw a certain light on it.
Strange reaction from the parent of the kids as well - both died, he seemed to wail about his daughter. Was in 2 reports but that could just be sloppy journalism.

[Fallout]

Sloppy journalism or sensationalism derived from 3rd or 4th hand information.

[Biker Biggles]

I bet if the guy who actually did jump a red light and then collided with the "defendant" causing her to hit the two kids had'nt inconveniently died before he could be procecuted,this woman would not be on trial.Even if she was driving a bit too fast and failed to avoid the incident she is only being blamed because the real culprit cant be.Two kids died so someone has to take the rap,and the trawling exercise stopped with her.