|
I\'ve seen a middle aged couple very proudly and carefully carefully carrying a very young babe in arms in the car. The chap, cloth cap included, was in the driver\'s seat(obviously), wearing a seat belt. The woman was sitting behind him, nursing the baby very carefully in her arms, no seat belt! If I could have spoken to them in a hundred languages I don\'t think that I would have got through to them.
|
|
They do say ignorance is bliss.Till something goes wrong then it wasn`t my fault?
|
Quite often now, you here of a car full of people being killed and others in another car not, and I dare say most people killed are not restrained,
The papers seem full of accidents where people clearly weren't belted, but it's as if they perceive it to be un PC to mention it in the reporting...oh well, it keeps the gene pool slightly larger than a puddle.
eg
www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=...9
|
|
|
Those with a young child will know that hospital maternity units are adamant that they WILL NOT let you leave with the new baby in a car unless you bring the baby seat into the unit and strap the baby in in front of a midwife. She then comes to the car with you and watches while you buckle the seat in place correctly.
We asked why they were so careful - after all, we knew it was essential so she seemed to be wasting her time just standing there. It seems that the NHS now insists, after a child was born early and was driven home in the mother's arms as they hadn't bought the seat yet. There was an accident and the child died before it got home.
There really is no excuse for young children (i.e. less than about 7 or 8). Every new parent will have had this message at birth.
|
So many points, all of them very excellent. To add my 2p
The case in question is so tragic and needless I can barely comprehend it. Whatever is said it just makes no sense. They played a statement on the radio from the parents of the child getting a lift - I think anyone driving with kids ought to listen to it.
I totally agree with the NHS policy of making sure you have a car seat to take new baby's away. I bought mine several weeks ago. There's really no excuse. If the baby's that early then it's going to be in the hospital for a few days anyway - more than enough time to buy a car seat.
Cycle helmets should always be worn. I have a helmet that's got a nice dent and crack in it from being knocked off my bike, I'm very glad that the crack is not in my head!
|
Some sense & some tosh. Watch out for some more tosh in this post.
1. I'm sure that 20 minutes of watching each new-born leave hospital , integrated over all new-born babies would provide the NHS with an extra nurse or two who could save lives instead of fill our lives with red tape.
2. No cycle helmet will help those idiots who insist on cycling on busy roads in London. (Just for the record, I love cycling, but only in Cambridge where it makes sense. Otherwise, I love buses/the tube. And can even be persuaded to drive occasionally.)
3. I hope that broken old helmet, Old Pecuilier, is kept as a momento, not that it continues to be used. A helmet that has sustained an impact should be written off. Even if it looks OK, it should still be written off, as it may have had its safety compromised.
I've always considered that the inconvenience of a cycle helmet is not worth it. Cycle to station. Commute to London (in suit). Visit client. Stay overnight. Come back following day.
What do you do with the helmet?
But silly woman. May her sentence be a lesson to the rest of the world.
|
A silly woman for sure. Even a stupid and reckless woman. But what a terrible thing to have to live with. And I cannot even begin to imagine how the other three parents feel.
I wish her sentence could be a lesson, but how can it be ? If fear of killing two children doesn't stop you doing something reckless and dumb, then I hardly think two years in prison will be a deterrent.
Its been some years since I took a stupid risk on the roads, but without doubt I have taken them in the past. And nothing other than pure luck stopped them being a disaster for all concerned.
There but for the grace of God............
|
"Its been some years since I took a stupid risk on the roads, but without doubt I have taken them in the past. And nothing other than pure luck stopped them being a disaster for all concerned.
There but for the grace of God............"
Absolutely. The reporting of these things makes me wonder. Are we all supposed to rejoice in our perfect behaviour and seek retribution against the weak one?
My guess is that most of us have made errors that result from recklessness, possibly when we were young. Luckily the things that we learnt from didn't have such horrifying consequences.
My sympathies are with all concerned. I really don't see how prison is going to help - does it make any of us feel better? Will it alter the tragic outcome? Do we really think this is going to correct her behaviour?
My God, if the outcome hasn't altered her - prison has no chance.
|
|
One look at the womans face as shown last night, would reveal she has paid the price. Trully a woman who's life has been blighted and ruined for a piece of stupidness. Prison? what good does that serve?
|
|
|
|
2. No cycle helmet will help those idiots who insist on cycling on busy roads in London. (Just for the record, I love cycling, but only in Cambridge where it makes sense. Otherwise, I love buses/the tube. And can even be persuaded to drive occasionally.)
There's busy and there's busy. Euston to Chancery Lane is thirty minutes on foot and little less by tube or bus. By bike (folds and goes with me in the train/under the desk) 10 minutes; roads half busy with slow monving traffic, lots of nice bus lanes. No fancy clothes required though jacket lives in the office.
Helmet, if I had one, would be fastened to the briefcase.
|
Lots of nice bus lanes... filled with... lots of nice buses. I'd join you if I could bring a tank; otherwise I'm sticking to my bus!
That poor woman has definitely paid her price. But she has gone to jail as a deterrence - that's how life works - with any luck she'll make some other people think twice, thrice or more. She'll be about by Christmas, I hope & expect. Definitely silly though: doing the sorts of speeds that were reported down those rough Lincolnshire fen roads, with children not wearing seat belts.
|
|
At least this lady's car was roadworthy, taxed and insured, whatever the unfortunate outcome of her driving. How do we think her sentence compares with the 8 months (or is it now 6) given to an unlicenced un-insured illegal immigrant, given for running down a child and then leaving the scene?
|
Erm, I think you'll find that HE was acquitted, by a jury of 12 good men, of dangerous driving. His being an illegal immigrant is of no relevance to whether or not his driving was dangerous or not. Likewise his being taxed, insured or whatever.
This lady however admitted to dangerous driving. I doubt that the courts would have sent that chap down for being uninsured, were it not for the other consequences of his actions.
|
Erm, I think you'll find that HE was acquitted, by a jury of 12 good men, of dangerous driving. His being an illegal immigrant is of no relevance to whether or not his driving was dangerous or not. Likewise his being taxed, insured or whatever. This lady however admitted to dangerous driving. I doubt that the courts would have sent that chap down for being uninsured, were it not for the other consequences of his actions.
Err, I think you will find that he was not charged with Dangerous Driving, insufficent evidence, therefore he was not tried on that charge and he was not therefore acquitted. He was convicted on a lesser driving offence.
Difference with the mother, was that she admitted and was sentenced on her plea, whilst I belive he entered a not guilty. You could have a whole new thread as to whether honesty pays!
With respect to the illegal immigrant, it is relevant only in respect to a functioning immigration policy should (not does) increase the chances of him either not being their at the time of the accident (could'nt get in or was caught & deported) or of him being taxed and insured and whether nor not he had a valid overseas driving licence etc if he were a legal immigrant.
Finally the majority of his sentence (18 months?) was for having a forged passport.
The outcome of the two cases could therefore show that denying everything and possessing illegal docs. and killing one child is as bad as killing two children including one of your own and admitting it.
Personally I think that the CPS has a case to answer.
Regards
Vercin
|
The point about being an illegal immigrant is that, as such, he would have been reluctant to "blow his cover" by revealing himself to the authorities by registering, taxing and insuring a vehicle and by applying for a driving licence.
Therefore a proportion of the blame DOES lie with the breakdown in immigration controls.
|
>>How do we think her sentence compares with the 8 months (or is it now 6) given to an unlicenced un-insured illegal immigrant,
I don\'t know. I have read very little, if anything, about it other than in here. What was the imprisonment for ?
Presumably the punishment for being an illegal immigrant is exportation, so that can\'t be it.
Uninsured normally neans £200 ish and a slap on the licence.
No licence is normally a double slap and a few more quid.
He wasn\'t found guilty of dangerous driving.
I heard nothing to say his car was unroadworthy.
I do seem to recall he was travelling at 50 odd in a 40 limit. But since we think £60 quid and 3 points is unacceptable, surely the punishment can\'t have been for that.
I suspect he got a jail term commensurate with seriously annoying the sensibilities of people who like nothing more than someone else to whip for their own issues, especially if there\'s a socially acceptable bandwagon readily available.
I notice that nobody has asked how/why the kid was in the middle of the road ? I didn\'t see anything about it being a zebra crossing.
Part of my point is that this vilification of someone because they are an illegal immigrant is senseless and not something which you would like if it happened to you in another country.
The rest of it is speculation based on tabloid reporting which is largely incomplete and usually misleading.
This is the issue with tabloid governed punishment - what is the penalty for losing control on a country road and spinning out into a field ? Why is that penalty different if there are children playing in that field and you hit them ?
Surely the intent is the same ? The recklessness, the incompetence, the \"whatever\" ? So why is the penalty different ?
|
|
I thought his incarceration was for failing to stop and the other offences of licence, insurance etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
