ChatterBank5 mins ago
Woman Blamed Fully For Crash ...
http://
am i missing something in this case?
it appears that they are pretty much 100% blaming this woman for the death of these toddlers - but she hit them only because her car was hit by another driver who ran a red light!
it seems the mans pathetic excuses of 'misconstruing the green light' and 'being confused by roadworks' etc, means they seem to think he is practically innocent!
i realise he has since died in unrelated circumstances so cannot be tried in court.
apparently she was on a hands free phone, and was going 36 in a 30 - both of which i agree are technically wrong - (i suspect she sped up momentarily to get through amber light) but had the man not run the red light and shunted her into the kids, there would have been no accident!
Of course she should shoulder some blame but i cant understand why they aren't slamming the mini driver too.
what do you think?
am i missing something in this case?
it appears that they are pretty much 100% blaming this woman for the death of these toddlers - but she hit them only because her car was hit by another driver who ran a red light!
it seems the mans pathetic excuses of 'misconstruing the green light' and 'being confused by roadworks' etc, means they seem to think he is practically innocent!
i realise he has since died in unrelated circumstances so cannot be tried in court.
apparently she was on a hands free phone, and was going 36 in a 30 - both of which i agree are technically wrong - (i suspect she sped up momentarily to get through amber light) but had the man not run the red light and shunted her into the kids, there would have been no accident!
Of course she should shoulder some blame but i cant understand why they aren't slamming the mini driver too.
what do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joko. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AOG
The prosecution evidence is different from the defence evidence. Basing a conclusion on only one side of the evidence foolish. By publishing a report on just one side of the account of the evidence, the newspaper is going to mislead its readers. If they print a report from the defences point of view, that may redress the balance, it will ve interesting to see if they do. I am not blaming the Daily Mail here, they are reporting a court case, not the accident.
The suspicion might be, they are being one sided because the accused is Asian and they specialise in biased reporting against Asians. Not sure that holds up in this case.
The prosecution evidence is different from the defence evidence. Basing a conclusion on only one side of the evidence foolish. By publishing a report on just one side of the account of the evidence, the newspaper is going to mislead its readers. If they print a report from the defences point of view, that may redress the balance, it will ve interesting to see if they do. I am not blaming the Daily Mail here, they are reporting a court case, not the accident.
The suspicion might be, they are being one sided because the accused is Asian and they specialise in biased reporting against Asians. Not sure that holds up in this case.
-- answer removed --
Gromit
/// We are reading the Daily Mail's report of the prosecution evidence. In her defence:
- there is no evidence that she was speeding prior to going through the lights on amber. ///
Daily Mail telling lies again I presume?
This from the Leicester Mercury:
*** The jury was told that the police investigation into the crash had found that she had been travelling at 36.6mph and the limit on the junction was 30mph. ***
*** The jury will also hear from a workman who, Mr Thomas said, will testify that he heard Mistry’s BMW accelerate before it entered the junction. ***
This from the Mirror
*** Police crash investigators discovered she had been driving at 36mph when she collided with the Mini, the court heard. ***
And from the Telegraph:
*** "She then crossed in excess of 36mph. She was then struck by the Mini - only after the collision did she apply the breaks - but it was too late." ***
I wonder why this particular woman driver is getting so much support from some ABers?????????
Answers on a postcard please.
http://
/// We are reading the Daily Mail's report of the prosecution evidence. In her defence:
- there is no evidence that she was speeding prior to going through the lights on amber. ///
Daily Mail telling lies again I presume?
This from the Leicester Mercury:
*** The jury was told that the police investigation into the crash had found that she had been travelling at 36.6mph and the limit on the junction was 30mph. ***
*** The jury will also hear from a workman who, Mr Thomas said, will testify that he heard Mistry’s BMW accelerate before it entered the junction. ***
This from the Mirror
*** Police crash investigators discovered she had been driving at 36mph when she collided with the Mini, the court heard. ***
And from the Telegraph:
*** "She then crossed in excess of 36mph. She was then struck by the Mini - only after the collision did she apply the breaks - but it was too late." ***
I wonder why this particular woman driver is getting so much support from some ABers?????????
Answers on a postcard please.
http://
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Methyl: "Imho. There is no issue with passing an Amber Traffic Light at 30 mph."
With respect Methyl - there should be an issue because the rule is that you should pull up and stop at an amber light, not go through it at the maximum allowable speed. You should be paying attention approaching ATS
and travelling at a speed that would allow you to pull up and stop safely.
From the highway code (again):
AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.
That is from here: https:/
You should remember that a novice driver may read what you have written and then think that it is OK to drive through all amber lights at 30 because he read it on the internet.
Only a green light means that you may go through and then ONLY if it is safe to do so.
With respect Methyl - there should be an issue because the rule is that you should pull up and stop at an amber light, not go through it at the maximum allowable speed. You should be paying attention approaching ATS
and travelling at a speed that would allow you to pull up and stop safely.
From the highway code (again):
AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.
That is from here: https:/
You should remember that a novice driver may read what you have written and then think that it is OK to drive through all amber lights at 30 because he read it on the internet.
Only a green light means that you may go through and then ONLY if it is safe to do so.
-- answer removed --
Chewn
// Speeding up to get through an amber light, though wrong, is fairly common driver behaviour. //
She was driving within the speed limit in the minutes before the crash (there is no evidence that she wasn't). In the short time from the lights turning to amber, to the cars colliding, she accelerated by 6mph. She was speeding when they collided, but that was an attempt to get through the lights. I am not condoning that, but drivers do that rather than cause a shunt accident.
// Speeding up to get through an amber light, though wrong, is fairly common driver behaviour. //
She was driving within the speed limit in the minutes before the crash (there is no evidence that she wasn't). In the short time from the lights turning to amber, to the cars colliding, she accelerated by 6mph. She was speeding when they collided, but that was an attempt to get through the lights. I am not condoning that, but drivers do that rather than cause a shunt accident.
-- answer removed --
Chewn
This is getting rather tedious. She was going 36mph when she crashed. So in order to beat the lights I am assuming she accelerated by 6mph. She was speeding for a couple of seconds before the crash. She was not racing through town speeding, driving dangerously, she accelerated for a very brief period. It contributed to the crash and deaths, but if she was going at 6mph slower, there was a good chance the children would still be dead.
This is getting rather tedious. She was going 36mph when she crashed. So in order to beat the lights I am assuming she accelerated by 6mph. She was speeding for a couple of seconds before the crash. She was not racing through town speeding, driving dangerously, she accelerated for a very brief period. It contributed to the crash and deaths, but if she was going at 6mph slower, there was a good chance the children would still be dead.
-- answer removed --
And from the highway code "AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident"
So the 3 things of which she's blamed are all technically legal.(OK 36mph isn't but is usually ignored)
So the 3 things of which she's blamed are all technically legal.(OK 36mph isn't but is usually ignored)
Prudie
/// And factually driving using a hands free phone is totally legal (whatever you think of it) and 36mph in a 30 zone does not 'usually' even result in a ticket.
Both are actions millions of us do regularly ///
/// And from the highway code "AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident"
So the 3 things of which she's blamed are all technically legal.(OK 36mph isn't but is usually ignored) ///
Yes but in this case it was her actions that allegedly caused the death of two little children, why are some continuing to make excuses for this woman?
/// And factually driving using a hands free phone is totally legal (whatever you think of it) and 36mph in a 30 zone does not 'usually' even result in a ticket.
Both are actions millions of us do regularly ///
/// And from the highway code "AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident"
So the 3 things of which she's blamed are all technically legal.(OK 36mph isn't but is usually ignored) ///
Yes but in this case it was her actions that allegedly caused the death of two little children, why are some continuing to make excuses for this woman?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.