Careless driving, use of phone and killing child - £195 fine
Careless driving, use of phone and killing child - £195 fine
Author
Discussion

funkyrobot

Original Poster:

18,789 posts

258 months

Wednesday 25th May 2016
quotequote all
Plus five points.

http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/ty...

I know the woman has been sentenced. But, holy moly, that doesn't seem to be a lot for contributing to the death of a child.

Yes, the child shouldn't have been in the road. However, it seems like the driver wasn't paying attention to the road ahead.

s3fella

10,524 posts

217 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
What a flipping joke.

longshot

3,286 posts

228 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Ah, this will be one of the 17 people a year who die because of phone use while behind the wheel that some people will tell you is an acceptable number of deaths so people can carry on using their phones while driving.

witko999

721 posts

238 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
What do you think is a suitable punishment? The taxi driver stated that the boy ran out into the road in front of the car, and the PO worker said that the boy often crossed the road incompetently.

Yes, the driver was committing a minor offence at the time of the crash, but the vast majority of the blame has to lay with the boy. Obviously the woman has no regard for anti mobile phone laws, but the punishment given is over and above a standard 3 point offence.

I know this sounds harsh but some of the comments under the article are ridiculous.

Guybrush

4,364 posts

236 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
The punishment is about considering the balance of fault on both sides. If the victim was partly at fault, then that is taken into account. A punishment isn't dependent upon the health of the victim, but about the circumstances.

rxe

6,700 posts

133 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Seems strange that the driver ahead correctly spotted a lone 7 year old loitering by the road, and the one following didn't. If you take the article at face value, then at the time, she was effectively on speakerphone, which should not have prevented her seeing the kid. My suspicion is that the phone might not have been in the door pocket at the moment of impact....but it was on speaker and they can't prove either way.

gruffalo

8,168 posts

256 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
People do not all have the same awareness of what is around them nor the same level of fore thought.

She may well not have seen then regardless of being on a call or not, just look around when you are out, drivers can't reverse, can't park, can't judge widths, the standard of driving by many is verging on dangerous as they are simply complacent about driving.

Most drivers if you handed them a loaded gun would treat it with caution, but they effectively switch off their brain in a car.

Cars and guns both made of metal and both kill people when handled by an incompetent.


grumbledoak

32,571 posts

263 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Not enough.

It should have been "Death by Dangerous".

agtlaw

7,413 posts

236 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Driver prosecuted for careless driving (rather than causing death by careless driving). Fined. Licence endorsed with 5 penalty points.

Subsequent inquest finds on a balance of probabilities that the use of a mobile phone was a cause of the accident.

Would a jury have been sure that the use of a phone was "a cause?"


C70R

17,596 posts

134 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
gruffalo said:
Most drivers if you handed them a loaded gun would treat it with caution, but they effectively switch off their brain in a car.

Cars and guns both made of metal and both kill people when handled by an incompetent.
Indeed. And both kill people that run in front of them during their use, with no thought for their own safety.

Type R Tom

4,333 posts

179 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
No defending them but in my experience of looking at collision stats, unfortunately more times than not when a child is hurt a contributory factor is them running out - according to the STATS19 information available that is.

CAPP0

20,881 posts

233 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
There's a petition floating around somewhere on the gov.uk site asking for a mandatory ban for being caught for hand-held phone use. I think it's the only way forward. I commute by (motor)bike and every single day I see people wandering all over the place, and invariably when you pass them they're staring down at the phone in their lap. I saw a tipper lorry on the M20 last week, he was weaving from lane 1, onto the shelf, back into lane 2, for about a mile or more. When I managed to get past him, he was steering with both forearms, using both thumbs on his phone.

Using the phone needs to go the same was as drink-driving. 50 (?) years or so back, loads of people drank and drove and probably expected a mild tut from the constable if caught. Now, everyone knows it's a no-no. Doesn't stop the minority, sure, but does stop the rest.

Aphex

2,160 posts

230 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Says on the site that she had the phone in the doorcard pocket on hands free. Very unfortunate series of events but I'd say I'd agree with the sentencing

BrumBrumDuffy

10 posts

127 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
I think its an anomaly that hands free phone use is allowed. There is no doubt in my mind that you just cannot properly concentrate on driving whilst trying to carry out a phone conversation.

This driver had made several calls during her journey; her mind was everywhere other than on the road, if she'd been paying proper attention then that little boy might have had a chance.

In my view sentencing should have an element of re-education to teach people that driving is an activity that you have to devote your whole attention to.

Tom_C76

1,923 posts

218 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
There are many things allowed in a car more distracting than having a conversation on a hands-free phone. Carrying children for example.

Station Road in Tydd carries quite a lot of traffic and only has a pavement on one side. I wouldn't let a 7 year old, competent or not, walk unsupervised along it never mind cross it.

As for driving standards, they are often way below what would be acceptable with or without phone use. I get called out a couple of times a year to examine buildings that have vehicles in them, drivers never get prosecuted for even Careless Driving, and you'd think sticking your BMW into a building was at least careless if not dangerous...

Disastrous

10,216 posts

247 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
BrumBrumDuffy said:
driving is an activity that you have to devote your whole attention to.
No it isn't!

longshot

3,286 posts

228 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Disastrous said:
BrumBrumDuffy said:
driving is an activity that you have to devote your whole attention to.
No it isn't!
Interesting.
So, what percentage do you think it deserves?



One thing that bothers me is that people seem to see driving as a right, not the privilege that it is.
You see far too many downright fking awful drivers on the roads and imagine how epic a shag the examiner had the night before to let them through.

Disastrous

10,216 posts

247 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
longshot said:
Disastrous said:
BrumBrumDuffy said:
driving is an activity that you have to devote your whole attention to.
No it isn't!
Interesting.
So, what percentage do you think it deserves?
I don't think it's an arbitrary percentage. The human brain is a bit like a computer (I guess) in that it should be able to dynamically assign resources to where they are needed most at that moment in time.

As such, the level of concentration I give to driving is constantly changing, as I would imagine it is with most people. Sitting in traffic in the city, in all honesty it's probably about 30% but if a situation develops that requires more resources then of course it can go up to 100%. Hence tailing off mid-sentence whilst speaking to a passenger (for example) because the taxi in front just changed lanes without warning and caused someone else to swerve or whatever.

longshot

3,286 posts

228 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
So strictly speaking, he was correct.

Calletrece

320 posts

160 months

Friday 27th May 2016
quotequote all
It says in the article that she wasn't actually using the phone. So, maybe this sentence is actually harsh?

Gutted for the Mum mind, imagine your last words to your child being completely ignored like that rolleyes

Edited by Calletrece on Friday 27th May 13:39