So what the hell are THEY going to do about it!

[Don]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3763715.stm

bbc said:

Law change call over road death Tony and Tina Leigh plan to take their fight to Downing Street The parents of a teenage girl killed when she was hit by a speeding car are calling for stiffer sentences. Jessica Leigh, 14, died when she was knocked down in Bridge Street in Dover, Kent, in September 2003. The 20-year-old driver was convicted of causing death by careless driving and was fined £300, ordered to pay £700 costs and given six penalty points. Tony and Tina Leigh have launched a petition calling for changes and plan to take their fight to Downing Street. So far they have collected 3,000 signatures in the past three weeks. Mr Leigh said: "What we are trying to so is to get the law changed for people who kill. "A car is a lethal weapon, and to me if someone drives it wrong and kills by it, whether it was an accident or not, he or she should get a stiffer penalty than what is pulled out now. "Six points and a £300 fine for her death just amazes me. "We have got the life sentence." His wife Tina said: "Jessica was a fun loving beautiful daughter who was loved by everybody. "He (the driver) has just put us through so much."

Complete with picture of emotional parents. Of course they're emotional - their poor young daughter has been run over.

So so some young nutter does in a teenager...although we've no idea how he was actually driving he could have been unlucky, he could have been driving like a tool.

He's given the biggest reprimand the judge can hand down. Doesn't seem like a lot. There again - it doesn't seem like a lot because someone died. If no-one had been hurt the six points and heft fine would seem like too much!

So the parents want to campaign to punish drivers for the consequences of the crime not the crime itself. In some ways I find this abhorrent and unjust. In other ways I can see the sense - surely if you understand that the knock on consequences of driving badly could be terrible you'd pay attention behind the wheel.

I guess what annoys me though...is I have a lot less sympathy for the parents of the poor young thing than I should have? Why? Because they want to make punishments worse instead of dealing with the cause - poor driving.

If they'd both said they were going to go on Advanced Driving courses and start campaiging for compulsory re-tests and were making a donation to Brake (yes, Brake) I'd have felt a lot more sympathy.

Terrible, really.

>>> Edited by Don on Monday 31st May 15:03

[chrisgr31]

Without knowing the facts one can't comment on this particular case.

However everyone makes mistakes, and an accident is an accident.

we have all done silly things in our time, some of us will have got away with them others won't. But where an accident is an accident it should be treated as such.

The problem comes in separating an accident from someone driving like a nob.

[V8 Archie]

Mr Leigh said:

A car is a lethal weapon, and to me if someone drives it wrong and kills by it, whether it was an accident or not, he or she should get a stiffer penalty than what is pulled out now.

I think I'd have more respect for them if they could speak the language properly .

[WildCat]

Don said:

I guess what annoys me though...is I have a lot less sympathy for the parents of the poor young thing than I should have? Why? Because they want to make punishments worse instead of dealing with the cause - poor driving. If they'd both said they were going to go on Advanced Driving courses and start campaiging for compulsory re-tests and were making a donation to Brake (yes, Brake) I'd have felt a lot more sympathy. Terrible, really. >>> Edited by Don on Monday 31st May 15:03

Of course - when in throes of grief - logic is replaced by vengeance. And to lose a child......does not matter how the child died. The pain and grief will never go away. But the pain will be like a white heat raging agony for them at the moment!

However, though I can well understand the grief -personally - would have more sympathy if they expressed desire to resurrect the Tufty Club and the Green Cross Code Man (who taught how to cross a road properly), campaigned for tougher L-test, return of proper road sense and educational adverts in prime time - same as we used to get - as well as Don's suggestions.

But instead of compulsory re-test - which could be difficult to introduce given the numbers - better to campaign for compulsory assessments - prizes being grades for discounts on insurance policies and to give incentive to improve. A full tough and extended retest should be the booby prize.

As for the sentence of six points and a £300 fine....(seems unreasonably lenient under circumstances so described - when one can receive a ban and/or similar penalties for opening up the motor on deserted motorway in early hours of a summer's day) one does wonder what other factors in this tragic case have been taken into account. Could it be that the child herself contributed to this accident by crossing the road carelessly - which mitigated the driver in some way?

One can only speculate without full facts ..... and of course, could be, as seems to be case all too often these days, another case of soft sap of a judge being taken in by a young man's sob story.

[PetrolTed]

Seeing as nothing about the background or circumstances of the incident are revealed by that article how can we comment on whether the penalties dished out were just or not?

Sad, but seems a bit of a pointless conversation to be having?

[GregE240]

PetrolTed said:

Seeing as nothing about the background or circumstances of the incident are revealed by that article how can we comment on whether the penalties dished out were just or not? Sad, but seems a bit of a pointless conversation to be having?

Maybe, but isn't it a sad indictment on journalism of today when all they can concentrate on is having this driver castrated or gassed, without putting both sides of the story across?

If it was in the Daily Mail then I'd understand, but shame on the BBC for giving this one sided story the space.

If the girl had run out on the poor sod or fell of the pavement pissed would there be as loud a call to blood?

[Don]

PetrolTed said:

Seeing as nothing about the background or circumstances of the incident are revealed by that article how can we comment on whether the penalties dished out were just or not? Sad, but seems a bit of a pointless conversation to be having?

So it is, Ted.

I do rail against the total lack of facts in most reportted stories these days...

One can only speculate. And now I'll stop.

[Buffalo]

Had this conversation with the girlfriend yesterday, when we travelled past a T junction on a main road near her place, which has recently been altered, such that the T-jct is a left only turn on to the main carriageway, i.e. no right turn into oncoming traffic.

Turns out a lad she went to school with has just been jailed for two years after affecting a right turn at this no right turn jct (against the slip road kerbing). He failed to see a motorcylce, pulled out in front of it and T-boned it, killing the rider.

My first thought was, "thats so harsh jailing someone for an accident" - but then i thought about it a bit more. It is in effect manslaughter and i guess thats where the jail sentence comes in. He willfully manouvered his car against the set rules for that junction which resulted in (albeit an accidental) death.

I still remain horrified that one can go to jail for an accident, but, it was the car driver's stupidity that caused the accident in the first place.

[chrissie]

um excuse me but it does say he was speeding....or have i missed something?

[stackmonkey]

chrissie said:

um excuse me but it does say he was speeding....or have i missed something?

At the risk of a flaming...

Yes, it does say he was speeding, but not by how much. I'd bet he wasn't exceeding the limit by a significant factor, because these days the media would make more of it if he was. The conviction was for careless driving. i.e. not paying enough attention to the driving, whatever the speed.

As someone who was given 7 points some 12 years ago for a non-injury accident below the speed limit, the punishment does seem lenient, but then I do not know the details of this case and am not going to comment further.

[kurgis]

Spot on Chrissie - think some people on PistonHeads forget that there are speeding drivers who kill/injure people, rather just get caught by a camera a few mph over the limit.

I can understand people being careful - the article dosen't reveal much about the circumstance other than the speeding bit, but come on guys OTT is beginning to creep into here in a big way..

[JohnL]

kurgis said:

Spot on Chrissie - think some people on PistonHeads forget that there are speeding drivers who kill/injure people, rather just get caught by a camera a few mph over the limit.

Yeah, but the fact that they kill/injure people is not a direct consequence of their breaking the speed limit.

They kill/injure people by driving like knobs (not commenting on this particular case BTW, just a generalisation). They also drive too fast for the circumstances because they are driving like knobs.

Whether that involves driving faster or slower than the posted speed limit is in fact irrelevant.

[bogush]

kurgis said:

Spot on Chrissie - think some people on PistonHeads forget that there are speeding drivers who kill/injure people, rather just get caught by a camera a few mph over the limit.

And the connection is?

How many millions of people "just get caught by a camera a few mph over the limit"?

And how many of the photos show a collision, never mind injury, never mind them killing someone?

Would you rather be missed by someone cruising above the limit and taking the appropriate avoiding action when you appeared in front of them?

Or hit by someone studiously keeping to 29.9mph?

People driving dangerously don't usually give a damm about the law.

So how will a camera "catch" them, never mind stop them?