Harsh?

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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hone-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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

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