Mother's appeal to death driver

[Peter Ward]

BBC website article: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/we[/url]

I'm sure we all have the utmost sympathy with this family. It's a tragedy that someone should be killed by a hit and run driver. When her mother says, "The person who did this to her should never be behind the wheel of a car again", I tend to agree with her. Whatever the circumstances, not stopping at the scene is indefensible.

However, what I hated about the article was a paragraph near the end:

article said:

Fellow residents of Hunter Court are also planning a campaign to urge motorists to slow down on the Pershore Road.

There is no indication that this driver was speeding. So why bring up this subject? To me it indicates that speeding has become inextricably linked with all forms of driving error, in just the way that the government wishes. That "drip drip" of propaganda is definitely having an effect.

>> Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 4th November 13:13

[jazzyjeff]

We won't know without knowing the post mortem results.

If the forensics conclude that speed was a factor in the collision then this would explain the group's action.

[kenp]

Speed will invariably have been a factor unless she was hit by a stationary car!

[apache]

jazzyjeff said:

We won't know without knowing the post mortem results. If the forensics conclude that speed was a factor in the collision then this would explain the group's action.

that is exactly the kind of woolly thinking these partnerships use. Firstly, speed is already being flouted as a cause before the fact, secondly how can the result of the findings of this death possibly be pre empted by 'the groups action'?

[jazzyjeff]

It's not woolly thinking at all. Or any other kind of fabric.

The "accident" occurred on Sunday so they should know by now the circumstances of the death (how widely the results would have been broadcast we don't know).

Anyway, its pretty safe to assume that driving over a human being is not something you forget to notice as you pootle along (staring trance-like at your speedo or otherwise). So even if the offender failed to see and managed to kill her at 30mph or less, its safe to say that they did a runner PDQ...

[MR2Mike]

Even if the scum bag was driving too fast, a campaign by local residents is most unlikely to prevent the sort of person that does a runner after killing someone from speeding.

[outrider]

Probably some drug crazed scum of the same species who machine-gunned those innocent night-clubbers a couple of years ago. My son is in the 1st year at Birmingham Uni and knew the girl as he has friends doing medicine, they are all very upset about it.

It's a real tradgedy and my sympathies go out to the family.

[anniesdad]

It is truly tragic that any Parent should outlive their child and I wholeheartedly agree that the driver shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car ever again.

I can understand the hurt that the family are experiencing but in the article there is not even a suggestion that the driver was speeding. There is a suggestion that the deceased has stepped out onto the road in front of the car and I can only assume that the driver has panicked (maybe uninsured/over the limit/banned from driving) and driven off.

Does anybody know if there were any witnesses?

[7db]

It's clear that he was going too fast when he hit her.

Perhaps he was not speeding, but they are campaigning to reduce the speed limit on that section of road?

Perhaps.

[anniesdad]

I'm not trying to defend the indefensable but how do you know he was clearly going too fast?

[7db]

The correct speed to hit someone at is zero. He was going faster than this. So he was going too fast when he hit her.

[vipers]

Yes very very sad, but a question which hasnt been put, "Was she looking as she crossed the road", (not that we will ever know sadly), do the police know if a car went through a Red or not, even on Red, I look both ways dont you?, I also look down the side of larger vehicles as I get halfway in case some cyclist, or motorcyclist is coming up the outside. How often do yu see folk crossing the road on their bloody phones, with the attitude of well the light is green, so it must be safe, my wife says that all the time.

Not stopping is something else, for which I hope they get the scumbag for. As for the residents feelings, how about just for once, leave the motorises out of this, and whilst the girl was 20 years old, try to educate the younger ones of the dangers of crossing the road.

I am not being negative here readers, but as a cyclist I have often come up to a left hand turn intending to turn left, and some bloody pedestrian just walks straight off the kerb. I am not talking big busy towns, I live in a relatively quite part of the UK, whoops looks like I am going on just a tad here.....

[7db]

vipers said:

I am not being negative here readers, but as a cyclist I have often come up to a left hand turn intending to turn left, and some bloody pedestrian just walks straight off the kerb. I am not talking big busy towns, I live in a relatively quite part of the UK, whoops looks like I am going on just a tad here.....

And of course since the pedestrian has right of way in that situation, you yield.

[deeps]

7db said:

The correct speed to hit someone at is zero. He was going faster than this. So he was going too fast when he hit her.

Strange logic.
Does that mean the pedestrian was walking too fast too?

[Rob_the_Sparky]

7db said:

The correct speed to hit someone at is zero. He was going faster than this. So he was going too fast when he hit her.

I'd like to see you try and hit a pedestrian when travelling at zero mph!

[7db]

deeps said:

Strange logic. Does that mean the pedestrian was walking too fast too?

Clearly if the pedestrian had been walking elsewhere, then there wouldn't have been an accident.

But since you don't need a licence to walk, and do to drive, and the pedestrian come soff worse in collisions than the motorist, society should always look more closely at the motorists actions.

[justinp1]

Clearly, a horrible situation.

In such a situation, we look to find a scapegoat or some kind of logic, so at least we can rationalise it to ourselves. We go with what we know and have been told and pursue this as at least this scenarion means that something can be done about it to make it right in future.

This is human nature. We are told speeding is the problem, so speeding is put forward to the answer in the same way the myth was propogated to us. Except this time the myth is now proved to be right to us. Nobody even stopped to think if the driver was breaking the limit, in fact there is no evidence whatsoever to say he was. All we know is he is most likely a bad driver, so why dont we add another factor we are told that bad drivers do, as this would solve our mystery.

I have posted the definition of brainwashing before, but the two examples below sum up the situation so perfectly, it really brings home how astonishing the doctrine of spin is:

brain·wash·ing (brān'wŏsh'ĭng, -wô'shĭng)
n.

1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.

2)The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.

[Translation of Chinese (Mandarin) xǐ nǎo : xǐ, to wash + nǎo, brain.]


It is working very well on both counts I think.

[MR2Mike]

7db said:

deeps said: Strange logic. Does that mean the pedestrian was walking too fast too? Clearly if the pedestrian had been walking elsewhere, then there wouldn't have been an accident. But since you don't need a licence to walk, and do to drive, and the pedestrian come soff worse in collisions than the motorist, society should always look more closely at the motorists actions.

What nonsense. If blame is to be apportioned for an accident, then all the facts need to be examined without bias. You can't automaticaly assume the driver is at fault just because they need a licence to drive. Pedestrians can and frequently do act irresponsibly and without thinking, which is just annoying in a pedestrianised area, but potentialy fatal next to a road.

[vipers]

7db said:

vipers said: I am not being negative here readers, but as a cyclist I have often come up to a left hand turn intending to turn left, and some bloody pedestrian just walks straight off the kerb. I am not talking big busy towns, I live in a relatively quite part of the UK, whoops looks like I am going on just a tad here..... And of course since the pedestrian has right of way in that situation, you yield.

Correct! only coz it bloody hurts when you fall off your bike, oh when they ever learn, my daughters excuse for not looking before crossing a road was "Dad, I can hear a car coming", after I explained that I could do 30 mph on my racing bike, and bikes dont JUST stop, she had 2nd thoughts about it............................ education is a wonderful thing....

[7db]

MR2Mike said:

What nonsense. If blame is to be apportioned for an accident, then all the facts need to be examined without bias. You can't automaticaly assume the driver is at fault just because they need a licence to drive. Pedestrians can and frequently do act irresponsibly and without thinking, which is just annoying in a pedestrianised area, but potentialy fatal next to a road.

My point, is that if you are the one cocooned in a nice steel cage, with all the momentum in the transaction, then you owe a greater duty of care to the pedestrian, than the pedestrian does to you.

In particular *if* you drive as if all pedestrians won't do something stupid, and you put yourself in a position as a driver where it will result in a death when one of them does something stupid (or slips, or makes a mistake, or is deaf, or is blind, or is not capable of making an adult decision), then you must take a substantial part of the blame for turning someones mistake into a fatality.