To actually feel sorry for the woman driving the car in the Wimbledon car accident

I am baffled at the apparent lack of compassion for grieving parents here and an underlying inference that this woman’s suffering is more than theirs.

Most people are capable of feeling empathy and compassion for more than one person at the same time.

I've not read one comment which suggests that the woman's suffering is worse than that of the grieving parents.

Very surprised that MN has let this post stand given its obviously libellous language. @TitusMoan Your exit from the thread in response to calls for evidence to back this up says a lot. I think you would be well advised to ask MN to either insert the word ‘allegedly’ at the start of your post, or take it down altogether. Unless maybe you want to come back to the thread and show us the evidence which led you to make it ?

Exactly this. Myself and quite a few other posters have posted more or less the same thing throughout the thread, but the mob mentality is such that posters will ignore hard fact in favour of uninformed opinion. I’ve no doubt that when the inquest verdict is returned, for some even that won’t be enough.

I would have thought anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand that any insurance company would view a public apology as an admission of guilt, and as such would compromise her cover. It would also leave her open to criminal and civil action. I’ve no doubt she will have been advised not to make any such admission and the statement she did make would, as you say, have been vetted, if not entirely composed by her legal advisers. And speaking of legal matters, the poster I responded to and who prompted me to link to the Times article, might do well to ask MN to delete their post. I can’t fathom why anyone would make such a malicious and unfounded accusation on a public forum, when it’s so obviously libellous.

Some posters have compared this tragedy to similar incidents in which drivers have been convicted, and have come to the conclusion that this would be because they couldn’t afford the legal representation that this driver was able to. This is just nonsense. As has been explained ad nauseam throughout the thread, there are various tests and scans capable of confirming seizure - this is a medical issue, not a legal one, and as you rightly say, confidentiality means it is not subject to public scrutiny.

This has been a thoroughly unpleasant thread, demonstrating very clearly the intolerance of some, of the opinions of others. And also demonstrating the inability of some to think matters through logically and take into account actual facts, rather than posting knee jerk reactions based on nothing but the need to see someone held responsible and exact retribution. One can only hope that in this case, some of the opinions expressed here, are not a true representation of the British public.

“I know ‘expensive lawyers’ is being used as a jab by some of the posters here, which is frankly ludicrous; why would someone not hire the best representation they can afford in such a situation? Or indeed any legal situation? Are we actually supposed to be going with “Ooh! She hired a solicitor, she MUST be guilty!” Fucking seriously? The absolute clownery, if so 🤡”

To be fair in the case that I mentioned it was raised that the driver had postponed the police interview so he could have a lawyer present. It didn’t fly, who gets interviewed by the Met Police without a lawyer if they can afford or beg one, especially if you are a black or a woman? I would have thought even people with police forces less well known and officially condemned for their institutional racism and misogyny would understand that…..

Really?
What makes you say that, given reports say she's surrendered her licence.
Have you seen her driving?

She has been absolved of personal responsibility - she had a freak medical incident that was entirely beyond her control, so why would you expect her to take responsibility for that?

In any case, anything she says publicly will have been thoroughly vetted by her legal team, with the words carefully chosen in order to protect her not just from criminal action, but civil as well. Any mention of taking responsibility, and again I’ll stress that she isn’t responsible for this, could and would be used against her. I very much believe those words did reflect her feelings, but were written by her legal team alongside her. That’s entirely normal in such cases.

Determining the truth of the seizure claim is nothing to do with expensive lawyers, and everything to do with neurologists. Seizures can leave evidence in the brain, and causes of seizures can also be detected through scans. That anything diagnostic beyond ‘she had a seizure’ hasn’t been widely disseminated is because she’s entitled to medical confidentiality, and such information isn’t at liberty to be widely shared in order to sate anyone’s curiosity.

I know ‘expensive lawyers’ is being used as a jab by some of the posters here, which is frankly ludicrous; why would someone not hire the best representation they can afford in such a situation? Or indeed any legal situation? Are we actually supposed to be going with “Ooh! She hired a solicitor, she MUST be guilty!” Fucking seriously? The absolute clownery, if so 🤡

Wimbledon school crash: I have ‘no recollection’, driver says

https://www.thetimes.com/article/03167e34-1d06-4544-a5c5-9cf2dd5599e0?shareToken=deb3fc951efb0d7ea20216c75e98d8f2

The link to the Time article confirms that she surrendered her licence and will no be able to get it back until she can show that she’s been seizure free for the prescribed period. It also contain a quote from her statement confirming she has no recollection of the crash and there’s detailed expression of her sorrow for the families. So once again, can. You link to whatever evidence prompted you to post as you did ?

@Emilyontmoor

the posters on here who seem determined to assume guilt despite the CPS decision to accept the medical evidence. Indeed even if a court exonerated her as having been unconscious beyond all reasonable doubt they would still feel she should not be able to walk, or in due course having gone through the due process, drive anywhere without feeling the full weight of their ire.
But but but they feeeeeel she's guilty. 🙄 and in the court of social media and anonymous forums peoples feels count more than evidence and expert opinion.

But I give up as you can’t argue with people who are not looking at this rationally. It will be to risk many more straw men and conspiracy theories…..or in other words, you can't fix stupid

But I give up as you can’t argue with people who are not looking at this rationally. It will be to risk many more straw men and conspiracy theories

You can not use logic and reason to change somebody's opinion if they didn't use logic and reason to form their opinion

Incidentally this quite similar incident (minus the tragic loss of life) happened elsewhere today: Live: The Hundred in Romsey closed after car crashes into Morrisons | Hampshire Chronicle

Except that as I highlighted before if there was even a shred of doubt about the medical evidence then the CPS would have proceeded to prosecute to give a jury a chance to decide, especially in a high profile case like this where clearly there is a small proportion of people determined to apportion blame.

In the case I was involved with the medical evidence was that the driver’s account of his blackout was consistent with a sort of blackout that research had revealed to be a phenomenon (which I had never heard of, it wasn’t epilepsy which at least bar a few people on here most people do understand). Tests had had not found anything conclusive. So the jury had to decide whether the balance of probability was that it was a blackout or whether the prosecution had crossed the threshold of proving that he did not have a blackout beyond all reasonable doubt, judging the weight of evidence from witnesses, CCTV, etc. The jury judged they had not though God forbid any of them were the posters on here who seem determined to assume guilt despite the CPS decision to accept the medical evidence. Indeed even if a court exonerated her as having been unconscious beyond all reasonable doubt they would still feel she should not be able to walk, or in due course having gone through the due process, drive anywhere without feeling the full weight of their ire.

But I give up as you can’t argue with people who are not looking at this rationally. It will be to risk many more straw men and conspiracy theories…..

As has been said numerous times, an apology would likely be regarded by the insurance company as an admission of guilt. Until the inquest verdict has been returned it would be incredibly unwise for her to issue that kind of statement and she’s probably had legal advice in that respect.

Can you link to evidence of this. Because I very much doubt it if she has claimed a seizure caused the accident. Her driving licence will have been revoked pending medical confirmation of a seizure condition and she will have to remain seizure free for a year before she can apply for driving privileges to be restored, and even then the DVLA can refuse if medical evidence doesn’t support that. It’s absurd to suggest that she would be allowed to continue driving after publicly admitting to a seizure, and if the police have said they will not be charging her with any offence, they must have evidence supporting the claim.

The police confirmed they would not be prosecuting so they must be in possession of medical evidence supporting a seizure. Regarding an apology, firstly l would think the insurance company would regard it as an admission of guilt and secondly if there really was a seizure why would she apologise when she isn’t culpable ? She may yet express regret when the inquest verdict is returned but for the moment the less said the better. And proving you’ve had a seizure isn’t really down to good lawyers as much as whether medical testing can detect physical evidence of seizure. Until the medical evidence is presented and clarified no-one knows whether that has been proven or not.

Really how do you know that?

She’s not stopped driving around Wimbledon though, so whatever it was didn’t result in a DVLA ban.

Because I read the statement

Well she could have said ‘I am sorry’ rather than issuing a half-baked statement that looked like an attempt to absolve herself from all personal responsibility. I feel incredibly sad for the bereaved parents and for others who were injured / impacted by this event in any way. What evidence is there that the driver had a seizure / blackout? Why weren’t witnesses interviewed? Why were the families kept hanging for so long? Her excuse sounds pretty convenient to me. My close friend was heavily pregnant when her partner was killed by another driver on his way to work - head on collision - the driver was on the wrong side of the wrong and was 100% to blame. He also claimed to have a seizure / blackout - in his case he couldn’t afford to pay expensive lawyers and was convicted. I hope further investigations take place, the full evidence is shared, justice prevails and the families are finally given closure.

But we don't know how long between the accident and when she got our of the car, we also don't know how coherent she was, or, what happened subsequently. We also don't know exactly what type of seizure it was, it could have been myoclonic or a petit mal. I've also seen apparent rapid recovery from full blown grand mals only to be followed by deep sleep or semi consciousness a few minutes later. It's definitely not consistent.

What on earth is the point of being sarcastic about something which is about to be subjected to a full inquest? And yes, there probably will be neurologists at the inquest.

It was probably a pile on organised by the SUV / Epilepsy alliance…..😉

I know what I have learned from this thread... that there were no winners on that terrible tragic day, least of all the driver who was definitely having a seizure at the time of impact, a fact that has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever by a whole team of neurologists (not even just doctors apparently, but neurologists, and they would know something like that) and anyone who suggests that some evidence of this might be forthcoming is basically commiting blasphemy and should be told to calm down and check their very understandable emotions as they clearly can't think rationally at this very emotionally charged and difficult time. I'm completely sold. Especially by the Daily Mail commentators.

Daily Mail ran a hit piece with a suggestive headline and lots of pictures of her looking happy, rich, etc. And to their credit, the readers were all 'lay off the poor woman, you ghouls!' about it. DM readers taking the moral high ground over Mumsnetters: who'd have thunk it?

Well said.

I think what I have learned from this thread is that populism has now penetrated into every aspect of our lives.

It is so much easier when faced with a tragedy like this to run with your emotions and look for someone to blame and then create a narrative that backs up your prejudice rather than to think through the complex reality. Black and white, no grey. Then name and shame the target of their blame, no matter if they risk getting it wrong.

Then when someone comes along with some facts and highlights the complexity and ambiguity, then you resort to arguing straw men, accusing people of views they have not expressed, and cry “paid actors” acting on behalf of some shadowy conspiracy. Anyone who is not with them is against them. They just cannot allow any complexity to the issue or humanity to the target of their blame.

And the tabloids are only too happy to exploit those emotions to sell papers. Except to be fair to the tabloids even they have backed off trying to single out the driver for blame, though the police have handled this very badly and stepped into the breach.