A sad story but ...
Discussion
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1929000/1929214.stm
This is truly heart-rending to me as a father but it begs the question of why a six year-old child was crossing a major road with a speed limit of 60 or above unaccompanied. Do the BBC think that's perfectly normal? They're quick enough to bang on about a "high-powered Rover 827"
This is truly heart-rending to me as a father but it begs the question of why a six year-old child was crossing a major road with a speed limit of 60 or above unaccompanied. Do the BBC think that's perfectly normal? They're quick enough to bang on about a "high-powered Rover 827"
I wouldn't take my 7 year-old across a dual carriageway supervised, let alone unsupervised. In fact, his mum and I don't let him cross ANY road unsupervised yet.
Maybe we're overprotective, but I find it incredelous that this child was crossing roads unsupervised at her age.
Obviously it is still a tragedy, and my heart goes out to the parents, and the driver should have stopped, but surely this would have been avoided if the child had been supervised?
Maybe we're overprotective, but I find it incredelous that this child was crossing roads unsupervised at her age.
Obviously it is still a tragedy, and my heart goes out to the parents, and the driver should have stopped, but surely this would have been avoided if the child had been supervised?
quote:Because, as Alastair Composted-Silage pointed out:
Why are the BBC using the term 'High Powered'?
quote:
For company cars, BBC employees have Citroen 2CVs with a spark plug out, and they’re only to be used when it’s a necessary journey rather than shopping, transporting children or having fun. On this basis, I can’t help but feel the journos at the BBC speak as bitter, deprived and malnourished individuals.
Possible reasons the guy drove off:
i) Drunk?
ii) Drugged?
iii) Knew he'd be stitched up for this and end up inside so shat himself and ran?
No real mystery IMO...
If you think that (iii) makes him anything other than human in this Car-hating world then I question the objectivity of your viewpoint....
I'll end this post now, before I say something unsavoury...
i) Drunk?
ii) Drugged?
iii) Knew he'd be stitched up for this and end up inside so shat himself and ran?
No real mystery IMO...
If you think that (iii) makes him anything other than human in this Car-hating world then I question the objectivity of your viewpoint....
I'll end this post now, before I say something unsavoury...
I saw this story this morning..
I can't believe the B*stards at the BBC published the guys number plate!!!
Granted he shouldn't have driven off, but everyone will react to situations differently...
... there you are carefully watching your speedo, not daring to take your eyes off it just incase there is a speed camera.... then a little kid appears from no-where in front of you, you swerve to avoid but... BANG!! (thank god this has never happened to me) What do you do?? In that moment of panic I can understand that some people would run.
Like everyone else I can't understand why the Kid wasn't supervised!!
Christ victimising this guy isn't going to make roads safer.
Dan
I can't believe the B*stards at the BBC published the guys number plate!!!
Granted he shouldn't have driven off, but everyone will react to situations differently...
... there you are carefully watching your speedo, not daring to take your eyes off it just incase there is a speed camera.... then a little kid appears from no-where in front of you, you swerve to avoid but... BANG!! (thank god this has never happened to me) What do you do?? In that moment of panic I can understand that some people would run.
Like everyone else I can't understand why the Kid wasn't supervised!!
Christ victimising this guy isn't going to make roads safer.
Dan
Anybody else notice the mention of the railings by the road at that point? I agree the girl should not have been unsupervised and I also feel sorry for the driver, although he should not have driven off. Does anybody expect an unattended child to cross a busy main road where there are railings? No!
Part of me thinks "parents suffered enough" etc... but the other part of me thinks that stupid people need to have an example set to them that if they cannot look after their children then (a) Don't have them or (b) Be prepared to lose them and go to jail...
Either would be fine IMO..
Stupidity Kills - Kill the Stupid.
Either would be fine IMO..
Stupidity Kills - Kill the Stupid.
Six years old. Unattended at 8.00pm on a Saturday night, crossing a main road with (presumably) a 70mph limit in force. At what point does the notion of parental responsibility ever occur to these people?
Don't they watch TV or read the papers? Crossing the road on her own was a tragedy waiting to happen, but equally she could have been abducted or anything at that time of night!
I have 3 kids aged eleven and under. Maybe I'm too protective but for my money a six year old needs to be in her pyjamas, enjoying her bedtime story at 8.00pm on a saturday, not running to the shops.
The driver shouldn't have driven off though, but you could have bet yer house that THAT would be the focus of the media rather than the feckless parents.
What a tragedy for all concerned, not least the driver who will probably never get a good nights sleep for the rest of his life.
Andy 400se
Don't they watch TV or read the papers? Crossing the road on her own was a tragedy waiting to happen, but equally she could have been abducted or anything at that time of night!
I have 3 kids aged eleven and under. Maybe I'm too protective but for my money a six year old needs to be in her pyjamas, enjoying her bedtime story at 8.00pm on a saturday, not running to the shops.
The driver shouldn't have driven off though, but you could have bet yer house that THAT would be the focus of the media rather than the feckless parents.
What a tragedy for all concerned, not least the driver who will probably never get a good nights sleep for the rest of his life.
Andy 400se
quote:
It'll be interesting to see what the bloke is charged with. If they try to make an example of him then they must do the same to the parents. Road safety is about responsibility on both sides.
Nice idea Ted, but can you actually see it happening?
If that was the case then they would have to hold the parents of the little scrotes who nick cars responsible for their actions and as government has demonstrated we cant possibly do that. We must give them foreign holidays and driving lessons instead because thats the marvellous cuddly low fat society we live in.
God damn country has gone all to cock.
Matt.
quote:
It'll be interesting to see what the bloke is charged with. If they try to make an example of him then they must do the same to the parents. Road safety is about responsibility on both sides.
I honestly believe that if that was me I would sue the parents for allowing their child to run into my car.
I know that it is not nice for the parents, but then it is not nice for the driver either.
quote:
Ther is nothing to stop us all bringing a civil law suit against the parents!!!! Something simple like negligence
We could not sue ourselves on behalf of the rover driver. For negligence there must be a duty of care, a breach of duty of care, and damages as a result of that breach. The childs parents don't owe us a duty of care so far as I can discern
For negligence there must be a duty of care, a breach of duty of care, and damages as a result of that breach.
Can't chase the parents because Phoney Tony could be then charged because of his scrote of a drunken son!
Apart from that, very sad that someone who has an accident (possibly unavoidable) is being persecuted (hi-performance Rover? is there such a thing?) and the parents are not being investigated at least by the Social Services. They stick their noses in everywhere where they shouldn't and not where they should!!!!
But also very sad that a child has to die to bring the whole thing into perspective. Or am I being manic in thinking this is another wicked plan by Phoney Tony to get at the motorists. There's no doubt in my mind that his minions will use this as propaganda!
SAD (for the child) and FURIOUS (about careless parents)
IMHO IF the driver was at fault throw the book at him, IF it was unavoidable then throw the book at the parents for not supervising their child. N.B. not supervising a child can lead to prosecution of the legal guardians (parents teacher etc) everywhere in Europe!
quote:
I saw this story this morning..
I can't believe the B*stards at the BBC published the guys number plate!!!
Granted he shouldn't have driven off, but everyone will react to situations differently...
... there you are carefully watching your speedo, not daring to take your eyes off it just incase there is a speed camera.... then a little kid appears from no-where in front of you, you swerve to avoid but... BANG!! (thank god this has never happened to me) What do you do?? In that moment of panic I can understand that some people would run.
Like everyone else I can't understand why the Kid wasn't supervised!!
Christ victimising this guy isn't going to make roads safer.
Dan
Dan they even gave out his name and town where he lives last night !!! Why not go the whole hog and send round the lynch mob ! They haven't even spoken to him yet but he must be really shitting himself now.
It is tragic but who's to say he didn't over react and run because he was scarred to death, I very much doubt that he ran the child over deliberatly and is probably guilty of being pissed or drugged at worst, he is therfore a bloody idiot not a murderer punish him for sure but his crime is that he failed to have the foresight to see the possible consequences of his actions. Yes he is responsible for the death of a child but the malice element of his crime is actually less than some scrote that torches a Griff !
First off, I agree that the kind of "naming & shaming" like the BBC does here is hardly defendable. Tracking the guy should be left to the police and not to some "lynch mob". Also, the BBC thing is clearly tendentious - "high power" Rover (speed and weight is what counts, right), but some small print at the back stating he was within speed limits. Putting a picture of the man and his partner on the website is truly baffling - this would never be possible where I come from... what happened to innocent until prove guilty...? Very bad journalism.
Nevertheless, there is only one big issue here: THE GUY RAN OFF. Don't think up defences for him (the only valid one would be if it wasn't him driving...). He apparently got out of the car but then got in again and fled. This makes him heavily suspect, no matter what you say. He should have waited for the police there and then. If he panicked, the only thing to do now for him is to give himself up (maybe he did already). As long as he doesn't do that he is the suspect and no one else. If what is implied in the article is true (not speeding, 7-yr old child alone crossing a motorway at a place where it cannot be expected or foreseen) then he can only be punished for his running off (or whatever was the reason for that).
Furthermore he will have to live with the burden of this child's death, even if he could do nothing about it. Think for a second what it would feel like if you -involuntary - killed someone (with your car or otherwise). The parents will have to live with the knowledge that if the child would have been at home with them at the time it would be still alive. Any father or mother can only very remotely imagine what this must feel like and even then it turns your stomach upside down.
It might be just me but using or even debating the consequences of such an utterly useless and sad waste of life in the light of the position of the british motorist in general, politics, putting blame with people already punished worse than any judge could decree, at this time seems a bit disrespectful, dare I say distasteful.
Nevertheless, there is only one big issue here: THE GUY RAN OFF. Don't think up defences for him (the only valid one would be if it wasn't him driving...). He apparently got out of the car but then got in again and fled. This makes him heavily suspect, no matter what you say. He should have waited for the police there and then. If he panicked, the only thing to do now for him is to give himself up (maybe he did already). As long as he doesn't do that he is the suspect and no one else. If what is implied in the article is true (not speeding, 7-yr old child alone crossing a motorway at a place where it cannot be expected or foreseen) then he can only be punished for his running off (or whatever was the reason for that).
Furthermore he will have to live with the burden of this child's death, even if he could do nothing about it. Think for a second what it would feel like if you -involuntary - killed someone (with your car or otherwise). The parents will have to live with the knowledge that if the child would have been at home with them at the time it would be still alive. Any father or mother can only very remotely imagine what this must feel like and even then it turns your stomach upside down.
It might be just me but using or even debating the consequences of such an utterly useless and sad waste of life in the light of the position of the british motorist in general, politics, putting blame with people already punished worse than any judge could decree, at this time seems a bit disrespectful, dare I say distasteful.
I don't think I can disagree with anything you have written - you're quite right.
Speaking only for myself and as a step-dad, I agree that we should be wary of how we tread on this, but I do think that the BBC could be accused of biased or sensationalist reporting here. I do agree that the driver should have stopped and there is no excuse whatsoever for not doing so.
But at the same time I am outraged and horried that the parents would let this child roam around on her own after dark on a Saturday evening. As I said previously, I'd never allow my step-son to do this, and whilst parents are free to bring up their kids as they see fit, I think that the parents in this case have been almost criminally irresponsible.
Speaking only for myself and as a step-dad, I agree that we should be wary of how we tread on this, but I do think that the BBC could be accused of biased or sensationalist reporting here. I do agree that the driver should have stopped and there is no excuse whatsoever for not doing so.
But at the same time I am outraged and horried that the parents would let this child roam around on her own after dark on a Saturday evening. As I said previously, I'd never allow my step-son to do this, and whilst parents are free to bring up their kids as they see fit, I think that the parents in this case have been almost criminally irresponsible.
Speed Matters | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff