Death by dangerous driving
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4575329.stm
This accident happened a while back and has obviously just concluded.
I'm really not convinced by what's gone on. The kid rides his bike across a pedestrian crossing and gets killed, the driver gets death by dangerous because he was speeding and his car was knackered. Fair enough.
However, one of my best mates was in the car behind when this happened, and gave CPR to the kid at the scene.
This did not happen on the pedestrian crossing, but about 50 yards up the road (the skid marks and flowers are still there), the kid rode straight out into the road from behind some railings. My mate said that if the guy in front hadn't have hit him, then he would have had a job avoiding him, and he wasn't speeding.
A seven year old disabled kid is riding his bike near a major arterial route into Newcastle unsupervised. He rides straight out onto the road from behind some railings without stopping to check ("he just flew straight out") and gets killed. Driver in jail for five years.
[quote=my mate]i think thats harsh unless he was drunk or on the phone, there wasn't much he could do[/quote]
Whats the result of all this?
Well, about 2 miles further up the road there is a thirty limit, and this accident has been used to justify the placement of....you know what's coming....a scamera van!
Aside from tenuous reasons for scam placement, this case shows that speed didn't cause the death of the kid.
Q. If Mark Tye was driving slower, would the kid have been hit?
A. Not by the bonnet of Mr Tye, but would have been by the (limit-abiding) car behind.
Q. If Mark Tye had driven faster, would the kid have been hit.
A. Again, not by Mark Tye(as he would have been past the point in the road where the kid illegally entered teh carriageway - even if it had of been on the crossing.....[quote=the court]David had been playing on his bike with friends and rode across the road while the lights were still green for traffic. [/quote]), but again yes by other cars.
Therefore, the speed of Mark Tye was not a factor in the accident happening, merely a factor in which driver was involved. The cause of death was the kid riding his bike recklessly onto a major road, not the speed of Mark Tye. How will the scameras (which will shortly be placed on this bit of road in addition to the newly installed interactive signs) prevent this from happening again?
They won't.
Fencing the path off right up to the pedestrian crossing would help, but it wouldn't help meet partnership targets....
This accident happened a while back and has obviously just concluded.
I'm really not convinced by what's gone on. The kid rides his bike across a pedestrian crossing and gets killed, the driver gets death by dangerous because he was speeding and his car was knackered. Fair enough.
However, one of my best mates was in the car behind when this happened, and gave CPR to the kid at the scene.
This did not happen on the pedestrian crossing, but about 50 yards up the road (the skid marks and flowers are still there), the kid rode straight out into the road from behind some railings. My mate said that if the guy in front hadn't have hit him, then he would have had a job avoiding him, and he wasn't speeding.
A seven year old disabled kid is riding his bike near a major arterial route into Newcastle unsupervised. He rides straight out onto the road from behind some railings without stopping to check ("he just flew straight out") and gets killed. Driver in jail for five years.
[quote=my mate]i think thats harsh unless he was drunk or on the phone, there wasn't much he could do[/quote]
Whats the result of all this?
Well, about 2 miles further up the road there is a thirty limit, and this accident has been used to justify the placement of....you know what's coming....a scamera van!
Aside from tenuous reasons for scam placement, this case shows that speed didn't cause the death of the kid.
Q. If Mark Tye was driving slower, would the kid have been hit?
A. Not by the bonnet of Mr Tye, but would have been by the (limit-abiding) car behind.
Q. If Mark Tye had driven faster, would the kid have been hit.
A. Again, not by Mark Tye(as he would have been past the point in the road where the kid illegally entered teh carriageway - even if it had of been on the crossing.....[quote=the court]David had been playing on his bike with friends and rode across the road while the lights were still green for traffic. [/quote]), but again yes by other cars.
Therefore, the speed of Mark Tye was not a factor in the accident happening, merely a factor in which driver was involved. The cause of death was the kid riding his bike recklessly onto a major road, not the speed of Mark Tye. How will the scameras (which will shortly be placed on this bit of road in addition to the newly installed interactive signs) prevent this from happening again?
They won't.
Fencing the path off right up to the pedestrian crossing would help, but it wouldn't help meet partnership targets....
Dwight VanDriver said:
Twelve of your peers who heard all the evidence
DVD
They didn't hear all of it as my mate didn't give a statement.
SMS 5 mins ago said:
Depends what you see as fast and swerving, to me and you no to the kids mother yes. My opinion, the kid rode his bike infront of the car, I wouldn't have crossed on a bike there, I'd have used the subway (about 100yards away)
I can't say that this guy doesn't deserve some sort of punishment, at the very least, he was driving in a non-defensive manner in an unroadworthy car.
What I was trying to say was that this accident, however tragic, has been exploited by the local scameraship to roll out more vans when they can't prevent unsupervised, non-fully abled seven year olds from riding their bikes into the middle of the road.
Knowing the area well I wouldn't be surprised if he was playing chicken(out riding his bike with his friends). It's very common for the kids off that estate to do that across that road (and the A1!), trying to be kind, it's not the most civilised of areas, with shaved heads and hooded tops prevalent.
He would have hit him as he wasn't very far behind the beemer as it had pulled across in front of him, and the kid rode across the road diagonally into the traffic so increased the time exposed to danger.
If this guy had been going 40 he wouldn't have gotten to the point in the road where the kid rode out, as I said earlier, but the kid would still have been hit.
My mate didn't leave any details (probably freaked out after trying to resusitate a "completely mangled" kid), no-one found out that he was involved until a couple of months after.
The particular part of the road isn't really the sort of place that you would expect kids to be (unless you know the road and know that they play chicken across it all the time).
I do think that he should be punished for what happened (too fast when traffic around, (mainly) unsafe vehicle), but the point I was making was that this incident is used as reason to place scams, when scams wouldn't have prevented the kid being hit - responsible parenting might have though.
If this guy had been going 40 he wouldn't have gotten to the point in the road where the kid rode out, as I said earlier, but the kid would still have been hit.
My mate didn't leave any details (probably freaked out after trying to resusitate a "completely mangled" kid), no-one found out that he was involved until a couple of months after.
The particular part of the road isn't really the sort of place that you would expect kids to be (unless you know the road and know that they play chicken across it all the time).
I do think that he should be punished for what happened (too fast when traffic around, (mainly) unsafe vehicle), but the point I was making was that this incident is used as reason to place scams, when scams wouldn't have prevented the kid being hit - responsible parenting might have though.
There were large black skidmarks on the road (still slightly visible) due to locking up, the ABS was found to be not working. Anyone thoughts on how much difference it would have made?
I do think there has been a certain amount of pressure from teh public (as ever in cases like this), with the local paper leading the way - KILLER DRIVER MOWED DOWN SEVEN YEAR OLD. Hardly representative, it's not lke he mounted the pavement and hunted him down.
I do think there has been a certain amount of pressure from teh public (as ever in cases like this), with the local paper leading the way - KILLER DRIVER MOWED DOWN SEVEN YEAR OLD. Hardly representative, it's not lke he mounted the pavement and hunted him down.
superflid said:
Sgt Phil King of Northumbria Police said: "His driving was appalling when you consider the volume of traffic and the time of day. I cannot think of anything worse."
The driver of the car behind seemed to think his driving was ok, as for the unroadworthyness, tough tits.
superflid said:
Little imagination or too much "Speed kills"?
Sgt Phil King of Northumbria Police
PM of NSCP is Ray King.....
rhinocar said:
It would seem from the Telegraph that the Defendant pleaded guilty, glad I put that "if" in now.
I don't think he had much choice (in pleading guilty) because the car was unroadworthy, presumably there were other charges like driving a vehicle with defective brakes etc? Nothing was reported.
I'm not a legal expert, so is it possible that he was convicted for CDBDD because his car was dangerous, and the other arguments were used to back this up(and jumped on by the local media)? If this was the case then he would have had no choice but to plead guilty as his car was unroadworthy.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff