Boy 'not to blame' for fatal crash
Discussion
Apparently the car this 13 year old nicked and crashed had faulty brakes - so it's not his fault 
Never mind maybe he could sue the owner?
Wonder what the outcome would be if one of us did this in our own cars?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3183535.stm
A Somerset coroner has told a 13-year-old boy he was not to blame for a crash which killed a 74-year-old man, but said he should not have been driving in the first place.
The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was speeding in a stolen car with poor brakes when he hit the pensioner's car as it was pulling out of a junction.
Kenneth Rookes, from Monkton Heathfield near Taunton, was severely injured despite the fact the airbag in his Ford Escort went off in the crash. He died later.
The 13-year-old, who was given a two-year supervision order for stealing the Rover Metro, had to be cut out after hitting Mr Rookes' car at 64mph.
Accidental death
He had been driving at 71mph before the accident - the speed limit along the section of the A38 between Bridgwater and Taunton where the crash happened was 60mph.
The inquest heard that if the Metro's brakes had been working properly and the boy had been driving at 60mph or slower the speed of the impact would have been much slower.
Coroner Michael Rose said it was impossible to determine whether or not Mr Rookes would have survived a collision at that speed.
Police officers who investigated the crash say lessons must be learned.
Pc Tim O'Neill said: "This case demonstrates that people who steal cars have no idea of the conditions of the vehicle they are taking - clearly if this boy had not taken that car on the night in question Mr Rookes would not have died."
Recording a verdict of accidental death Mr Rose said there was no evidence that the boy had caused Mr Rookes death by dangerous driving, but told him he hoped he had learned his lesson.
Never mind maybe he could sue the owner?
Wonder what the outcome would be if one of us did this in our own cars?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3183535.stm
A Somerset coroner has told a 13-year-old boy he was not to blame for a crash which killed a 74-year-old man, but said he should not have been driving in the first place.
The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was speeding in a stolen car with poor brakes when he hit the pensioner's car as it was pulling out of a junction.
Kenneth Rookes, from Monkton Heathfield near Taunton, was severely injured despite the fact the airbag in his Ford Escort went off in the crash. He died later.
The 13-year-old, who was given a two-year supervision order for stealing the Rover Metro, had to be cut out after hitting Mr Rookes' car at 64mph.
Accidental death
He had been driving at 71mph before the accident - the speed limit along the section of the A38 between Bridgwater and Taunton where the crash happened was 60mph.
The inquest heard that if the Metro's brakes had been working properly and the boy had been driving at 60mph or slower the speed of the impact would have been much slower.
Coroner Michael Rose said it was impossible to determine whether or not Mr Rookes would have survived a collision at that speed.
Police officers who investigated the crash say lessons must be learned.
Pc Tim O'Neill said: "This case demonstrates that people who steal cars have no idea of the conditions of the vehicle they are taking - clearly if this boy had not taken that car on the night in question Mr Rookes would not have died."
Recording a verdict of accidental death Mr Rose said there was no evidence that the boy had caused Mr Rookes death by dangerous driving, but told him he hoped he had learned his lesson.
Somewhat unbelievable!
One hopes that a "supervision order" means that the lad will be "educated" in no uncertain terms that stealing cars and killing people is wrong, wrong, wrong and he will never do it again.
I know teenagers do stupid things and have some sympathy. But I never stole a car - or even "borrowed" Dad's without consent - and I certainly didn't drive on a public road until I'd reached my 17th birthday.
So why did this lad do it with such catastrophic results. "I blame the parents?" - well partially.
How on earth do you impress upon this kid that he should never do it again....do you think the injuries sustained in the crash will have been enough? I'm not so sure...
One hopes that a "supervision order" means that the lad will be "educated" in no uncertain terms that stealing cars and killing people is wrong, wrong, wrong and he will never do it again.
I know teenagers do stupid things and have some sympathy. But I never stole a car - or even "borrowed" Dad's without consent - and I certainly didn't drive on a public road until I'd reached my 17th birthday.
So why did this lad do it with such catastrophic results. "I blame the parents?" - well partially.
How on earth do you impress upon this kid that he should never do it again....do you think the injuries sustained in the crash will have been enough? I'm not so sure...
how was the speed determined? The brakes weren't working so they cant have left skid marks.
The reporting of this case has been propogandised and is full of holes.
WTF is wrong with this country, if the lad had stolen a gun and pointed it at the old guy and it had gone off. Would he have been absolved because the safety catch should have been on.
This is just disgusting.
The reporting of this case has been propogandised and is full of holes.
WTF is wrong with this country, if the lad had stolen a gun and pointed it at the old guy and it had gone off. Would he have been absolved because the safety catch should have been on.
This is just disgusting.
Skid markes are only one way of determining impact speed, and not that accurate in any case. I would assume that in this case the damage caused to both vehicles was used to determine the energy of the stolen car. More speed, more energy, more damage (speed, i.e. kinetic energy, does kill).
Those who investigate accidents have a 'bible' that determines the minimum speed of an impact given the deformation of the vehicles. It is the absolute minimum minus a few mph so that if challenged in court there is little chance of it being proved wrong.
In general if you add 15% to the given speed that is the actual speed of impact.
You've got to feel sorry for the poor chap who was killed. It's a wonder the court didn't blame him, after all, if he hadn't been driving on the road at that time there would have been no accident.
At least the lad has been told off.
A supervision order means that someone occasionally checks up on the lad during the two years and then writes a report. Not too severe for causing a death.
Those who investigate accidents have a 'bible' that determines the minimum speed of an impact given the deformation of the vehicles. It is the absolute minimum minus a few mph so that if challenged in court there is little chance of it being proved wrong.
In general if you add 15% to the given speed that is the actual speed of impact.
You've got to feel sorry for the poor chap who was killed. It's a wonder the court didn't blame him, after all, if he hadn't been driving on the road at that time there would have been no accident.
At least the lad has been told off.
A supervision order means that someone occasionally checks up on the lad during the two years and then writes a report. Not too severe for causing a death.
BuuuuuullSHIIIIIIIT!
A damn good thrashing then a spell in Borstal followed by military training just to teach the little piece of crap a lesson. Then a spell in Emergency mopping blood of the floors.
And while we're at it, community service for the parents for 5 years, sell up their possessions and donate the value to the family of the man their son murdered.
A damn good thrashing then a spell in Borstal followed by military training just to teach the little piece of crap a lesson. Then a spell in Emergency mopping blood of the floors.
And while we're at it, community service for the parents for 5 years, sell up their possessions and donate the value to the family of the man their son murdered.
There was just a hint of irony in my comment.
In my time as a police officer I have arrested a shoplifter who was sentenced to 3 months as she did not pay her previous fine and admitted she was unlikely to pay any new one imposed. She was a single mother, a bit slow and lived with her parents. The local shops knew she stole but still let her in. She was not the nicest person I ever met and her language was quite foul. She hit me when I arrested her and had bitten the store detective. Mind you, she never killed anyone.
Nice to know we have justice in this country. (More irony.)
Derek
In my time as a police officer I have arrested a shoplifter who was sentenced to 3 months as she did not pay her previous fine and admitted she was unlikely to pay any new one imposed. She was a single mother, a bit slow and lived with her parents. The local shops knew she stole but still let her in. She was not the nicest person I ever met and her language was quite foul. She hit me when I arrested her and had bitten the store detective. Mind you, she never killed anyone.
Nice to know we have justice in this country. (More irony.)
Derek
james_j said:
Kind of makes the fine given to a person driving a car in perfect condition, fully taxed and insured, on a perfect day, on empty roads, but caught driving over the (usually too low) speed limit just a tad out of proportion.
>> Edited by james_j on Tuesday 2nd September 07:25
Just don't even go there! (grrrr!! we totally agree, but it's only making me bitter).
C
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff