Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be quite upset by this ... death by careless driving

53 replies

Justnotimaginitive · 23/06/2014 16:08

Just over a yr ago someone I know was run over and killed whilst doing his job which is a Lolly pop man.

The person driving the car said they couldn't see because the sun was in their eyes.
They drove for 220 metres which is approximately 30.seconds when they couldn't see, this was not momentary blindness by the sun btw 220 metres is quite far.

So I think this is careless driving, however a lot people seem to think.because she she has to live with this for the rest of her live that is enough and she isn't quilty.

As it happends the case has been dropped due to 2 discharged jury's who couldn't agree either.
I was at the hearings I heard the evidence and still think.she is guilty.

I personally think if it had been a child, pregnant woman she had hit, or infact if she had been a 21 yr old man then she would have been found guilty. Am I unreasonable for thinking this ?

Please be gentle this is quite close to.my heart he was an amazing person and missed so much.

OP posts:
Greyhound · 23/06/2014 16:11

I agree with you. She should have been wearing dark specs if it was a sunny day. She was driving far too long without being able to see properly.

My son and I nearly got killed some time back by a man whose eyesight was later found to be too poor to drive.

todayisnottheday · 23/06/2014 16:14

I think the fact that two separate juries couldn't reach a verdict means it must have been a tough one. From what you've put here it sounds to me like she was guilty but things are rarely so simple. Either way it sounds like a horrendous incident and an awful way to lose someone special Sad

Susyb30 · 23/06/2014 16:18

Yadnbu..she couldn't see him? Wow that sounds like complete bollocks to me..despite the fact lollypop people are covered in reflective clothing not to mention the rather huge stick they carry, I t just sounds to me like a pathetic excuse for careless driving. Im sorry for your loss. .thats very sad. Ii certainly don't feel justice has been done for your friend x

Original poster
Justnotimaginitive · 23/06/2014 16:24

I think the problem is that the jury see her and think she has to live with this/ I've been blinded by the sun and still driven and are putting themselves in her shoes rather then looking at the facts which are she carried on driving for 220 metres, whilst not slowing down but doing about 28 miles an hr, it would take about 30 seconds to.travel.that far at that speed. And she couldn't see and admitted she couldn't see.

However I really think if she had ran over a child.or.pregnant lady or had she been a 21 yr old male she would have been found guilty.

OP posts:
bigdog888 · 23/06/2014 16:26

Tough one I guess without knowing the full details. If she did take 30 seconds to travel 220 meters then she was travelling very slowly which may or may not mean that she'd taken appropriate action based on being blinded by the sun so one could suggest that she adjusted her driving to suit the conditions which would probably not mean she was being careless. 30 seconds to travel 220m is an average speed of 15mph which I would not think excessive.

goats · 23/06/2014 16:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AgaPanthers · 23/06/2014 16:37

It happens all the fucking time, if you want to kill someone, do it with a car. The excuses people come up with as well.

Blamed a spider:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/10404620

Original poster
Justnotimaginitive · 23/06/2014 16:42

It was approx 30 secs, they found that she was travelly at between 24_28 miles an hr and said in trial it was 'about' 30 seconds. The thing is she pulled out of a side road onto a main road and it was 220 metres until she hit him and she admits she couldn't see for that time, so she was actually speeding up not slowing down.

Personally I think if you cannot see then you stop especially if you can't see a lolly pop man in a florescent jacket with a 6 foot Lolly pop stood in the middle of the road.

I really think had it been someone younger she hit or had she been male she would have been found guilty

OP posts:
unweavedrainbow · 23/06/2014 16:46

why do you think that? Age/gender isn't an obvious factor? i'm so sorry anyway :( driving seems to be an easy way to get away with something

bigdog888 · 23/06/2014 16:51

Based on the facts you've given though I'm not sure that as a juror I could believe 100% that she'd been careless. Sorry, I'd need to be convinced. It must be horrific to have to live with though - much worse than any sentence for death by careless driving.

kentishgirl · 23/06/2014 16:51

I hate it when I'm blinded by glare - it scares the shit out of me. I slow down and would pull over if it were more than a few seconds. I don't think driving that way for 30 seconds is in any way acceptable or safe driving.

Poor man.

YouMakeMeHappy · 23/06/2014 16:52

Thats so sad, I'm sorry. I dont think she should be punished though, what would Be the point? I agree she will have suffered enough.

I'm sure once the shock has worn off you will think the same

kentishgirl · 23/06/2014 16:53

I agree that if it had been one of the children he was helping, there'd have been a lynch mob outside the court. Some lives, sadly, are judged as being of more value than others.

I do think that age/gender has an effect on how your actions are seen. A boy racer would have been looked at differently.

I'm finding one of the advantages of being an 'invisible' middle aged woman is that I get away with things other people don't, or that I wouldn't have when I was younger. Not driving offences, obviously, little things. People are more willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

kentishgirl · 23/06/2014 16:54

She shouldn't be punished? Shouldn't she lose her license at very least if her judgement is so poor?

5Foot5 · 23/06/2014 16:57

I am not surprised you are upset. You know someone killed in tragic circumstances and your are bound to miss him.

However, the jury will have been told that they have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt before they find someone guilty. If two juries have been discharged over this case then there must have been some reasonable doubt in their eyes.

CheeseandPickledOnion · 23/06/2014 16:59

I actually had a spider come down from my visor in the car the other day right in front of my face and then the wind from the open window blew it off it's thread of web and into my face. I was distracted for several seconds on a dual carriage way. It can happen.

Fortunately I didn't crash.

MeeWhoo · 23/06/2014 16:59

Anyone who says YABU, please imagine yourself driving without being able to see and then count to 30 seconds.

Original poster
Justnotimaginitive · 23/06/2014 17:00

Points and a driving ban would have been enough, we aren't talking about wanting her to go to prison but to accept that if you drive whilst you cannot see and cause a death then you have caused that death by careless driving.

I think it would be looked at differently had it been someone younger that died or had she been male, It's hard to articulate but I really think she would have been found guilty.

OP posts:
bigdog888 · 23/06/2014 17:05

But points and a driving ban are just an inconvenience - I certainly wouldn't be too bothered by that. Living with the fact that I'd killed someone though would be a lifetime of regret and sadness.

SallyMcgally · 23/06/2014 17:07

I don't think you're unreasonable. 30 seconds is a really long time in driving terms. It's certainly long enough to be trying to pull over, or slowing down a lot, and putting on your hazard lights if you're being blinded. I feel sorry for all parties. She made a terrible error of judgement, but from what you say it does sound as if she's responsible. It's not as if you want her to go to prison, but yes a driving ban and a fine to be sent to the charity of the victim's family's choice seems in order.

AgaPanthers · 23/06/2014 17:10

It is not about living with guilt though is it? It is showing as a society that killing people with cars is serious and avoidable.

We must all see potentially lethal driving everyday, it is hardly rare.

Original poster
Justnotimaginitive · 23/06/2014 17:26

Aga- it almost feels like they are now saying that if you drive whilst not being able to see then then that is acceptable, it sends the wrong message to drivers that they don't need to adjust their driving if they are blinded by the sun.

Cheese - that is a slightly different situation though isn't it, I'm sure Its wasn't 30 secs and you tried to keep your eyes a somewhat on the road. It's the same if she had had a sneezing fit, she would not have had time to adjust her drivng, as it stands if you time 30 secs that's a long time, it doesn't sound it but you would be surprised I can imagine you were distracted for 2 -3seconds at most.

I am not saying we haven't all made mistakes whilst driving but to drive she you cannot see is careless.

Kentishgirl - you have said what I couldnt regarding age gender.

I just wish she was being held accountable for her actions.

OP posts:
Andrewofgg · 23/06/2014 17:31

Juries in driving cases always think There but for the grace of God go I and are slow to convict. If you are ever accused of a motoring offence and you have the choice go to the Crown Court.

Olga79 · 23/06/2014 17:43

Unfortunately I think in driving cases the age of the victims doesn't really make a difference. Juries are very reluctant to convict because they can too easily see themselves ending up in a similar situation.

Carlisle death crash bus driver cleared of charges