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

[bagpuss90]

I’m sure I’ll be flamed here . I totally sympathise with the bereaved parents- I can’t stress that enough. I can understand them wanting justice . As we know the driver of the car suffered an epileptic seizure at the wheel - she had no history of epilepsy. I don’t see what she could have done differently. She has to live with what she did although it wasn’t her fault. AIBU to feel quite sorry for her ?

They didn’t see the manner of driving which is what is relevant. The car and the scene will be forensically examined, what can the statement of someone turning up after the event add? They have no information about the actual collision or the events leading up to it.

I didn't say I don't feel any sympathy, just that I'm not reserving as much for the survivor, who didn't lose their own children.

Lack of empathy is starting a thread about the poor person that got to go home at the end of the day

The level of ignorance on this thread is quite an eye opener. Posters quite prepared to spout complete nonsense about a medical issue without even the knowledge a bit of basic googling from reputable sources would provide and then spin their stupidity into theories and judgements about this tragic accident.
Explains a lot of the nasty minded ill informed responses on other topics.

It’s actually not a lack of empathy. You can look at a situation and have empathy for people on all sides of it.

Regardless of what people here think. Sometimes awful things happen, but no one is to blame.

20 odd years ago, I lived in a village and a young boy about 4 ran out between to parked cars. A car going less than the 30 mile an hour speed limit hit him.The boy ran out straight in front of the car. And killed him. When the driver wasn’t charged the father and other family members started a hate campaign against the driver. He ended up leaving his job and moving away. He was deeply affected by the accident. But there was literally nothing he could have done. I understood how painful it was for the family. But I could also have empathy for a man driving home from work, carefully, but had to live with what happened and then had to pack his and his families lives up, move his children’s schools, move away from family because the family became violent. What the family did absolutely wasn’t ok, but I could have sympathy for their loss and what they were feeling.

It’s actually very empathetic to look at a situation and have empathy for people on all sides. I don’t think the Op said the driver was deserving of more sympathy. Did they? Did anyone else?

This thread is nuts. There was a year-long investigation, and the results will be presented, and examined and cross-examined, at the inquest (which was deferred pending the cps decision).

The police thought they did a good thing by sharing the top level conclusion and cps decision, and instead have been met with a barrage of criticism from people trying to second guess the inquest verdict on the basis of no knowledge or expertise.

Now they've been bumped into another 'investigation', which can only be about how they handled relations with the families etc, but the existence of which gives the false impression that there was something wrong with the crash investigation itself. Surely this investigation could have waited until after the inquest.

I understand your outrage, but I don't see why this is a moral issue. What do you mean by decent?

If, as seems to be the case, the driver suffered an unforeseeable seizure, in what way is she culpable? If she is in no way culpable then she is not responsible let alone accountable for the tragic deaths of the children. We cannot anyone accountable for something they were not responsible. In these circumstances she didn't kill the children.

For those saying they don’t believe it was a seizure, what do you think happened?

Her phone will have been seized and checked for activity.
She would have been checked for alcohol and drugs.
Her car would have been examined for mechanical failure.
Her car’s data (from all the sensors and airbag deployment) would be gathered.

Even if she was distracted why didn’t she brake or swerve at all? She would have been aware something was wrong after mounting the curb. Braking and swerving would happen.

It seems some would rather a witch hunt.

This thread is bringing out the beast in people. Blaming those who erected the fence?

I have posted nothing about seizures - I know little about medicine.And nothing about punishment - I do know a bit about the law. Who cares if the driver was rich or poor - not relevant. But I maintain most strongly that our sympathy should be with the two children and their families.

I appreciate that posters on here clearly have skin in the game, but their belligerent insistence that this was “just one of those things” and that of course if the woman wants to she can drive again sounds heartless and very, very selfish.

I think the underlying reason that people like to speculate about situations like these is to mentally protect themselves.

They don’t want to believe bad things can happen with no one to blame. They don’t want to believe they could be in the parents position and there be no one punished. They don’t want to believe they could easily be the driver. It’s far more comfortable if the driver made a conscious decision that they knew would likely end in someone getting hurt. It’s easy for our brains to accept there was a villain and that it could never be them.

If there was nothing the driver could have done to avoid it, it could happen to them. Every time they drive a car there’s potential that the same could happen to them with no forewarning, even if they drive a punto.

It’s more comforting to come up with a hundred different and ridiculous reasons that it was the drivers fault, because it makes them feel better.

So you know little about medicine or seizures but believe no one with epilepsy should drive. You believe they are morally wrong to drive. You are making a moral judgement when you have no knowledge of the condition. That’s not morally superior.

Who blamed those that erected the fence? But if we are going to come up with wild conspiracies and made up reasons the driver was to blame. Why can’t people speculate about wether having a school field next to a road with a thin fence was a good idea. It could come up at the inquest.

How is it heartless and selfish? You won’t answer why you drive now? You said you would give up driving if it was you. You but you are risking people’s lives every time you drive, now. So why drive now? Is that heartless and selfish? Knowing you could cause the death of someone, doing something you don’t need to do. But you do it anyway. Anyone, including you or your husband could have a medical episode at the wheel and kill someone. But it’s a risk you are willing to take. Why does someone have to die for you to not take that risk? Not very morally superior is it?

Making out you would step outside the law if you were the parents and saw her driving again, isn’t morally superior. Is childish and ridiculous because you would do nothing.

What skin in the game do we have? Do you have skin in the game?

Money makes all the difference in a case like this and it is incredibly naive to think otherwise.

The families of the victims have money as well. Which party's money are you suggesting has made a difference? I honestly can't tell. You could be saying the lack of charges is due to the driver's money, or that the families of the victims have been able to have Met investigation reviewed due to their money.

I have to say @ShouldhavebeencalledAppollo , my personal "hook" for this is a) having children the same age as the deceased, so thinking about how I would react in their shoes and b) I am the same sort of demographic as this woman and, to put it bluntly, in my neck of the (suburban) woods if you see a car being driven badly, stuck somewhere unable to reverse and therefore requiring another one-five cars to back up out of the way to help, taking up two parking spaces because of poor spatial awareness of the vehicle/inability to reverse out, performing an illegal maneouvre where the likely damage would be to another, smaller vehicle - it is always a Land or Range Rover. I've driven these cars in rural Zimbabwe to hitch farm loads - they are not needed or appropriate in London. Often ime the driver has an insufficiently developed ability to control the vehicle. They don't have a handle on the size of the thing, or its power. I've asked a few of the parents at my children's school who have them whether they've gone on an advanced driving course to understand better how to use it - blank looks.

And now it turns out the woman sells Range Rovers for a living, which in other less tragic circumstances would be an amusing irony.

I don't know what happened. Neither do you. But I don't think sudden onset fit and memory loss is the only possible explanation. If I was a parent to one of these girls I would push to see and examine every last scrap of evidence.

There is also the fact that this story had the ingredients for the media to run with it. In that sense the fact it was a wealthy woman in a huge SUV that crashed through a school fence is relevant. All factors that would increase reader engagement, so that the media covered it all the more, and clearly wound up some mumsnetters.

It might come as a surprise to them that these accidents do happen as a result of people having seizures / blackouts but they do. In the case I mentioned before I cannot find any mention of it in any press coverage, not even local, although a big car ran out of control and hit a woman and child on a zebra crossing. The child was so severely injured they spent 6 months in hospital. Perhaps that was because it was at a junction where there had been fatal accidents that did get press coverage or because none of the people involved were wealthy or white. It did go to court but the verdict was that it was an accident, nobody was culpable.

She doesn’t sell range rovers for a living. That’s yet another stupid piece of misinformation floating around. Shame on those repeating it.

All parties involved have money and wealth in this situation. Which one makes the most difference?

She doesn’t sell range rovers for a living. That’s yet another stupid piece of misinformation floating around. Shame on those repeating it.

I looked on LinkedIn this morning, and there’s a woman with the same name and appearance noted as such. Also recent trade industry rags interviewing her. I will happily edit my post if this is not correct info, but it seems to be.

I did not say the driver deserved more sympathy- just that I felt rather sorry for her

Also, for those who are darkly hinting that there are “other reasons” they can think of why this happened, can you give a couple of other possibilities that cover the known evidence? Given that they would have tested for alcohol or drugs and checked the car and its sensors for mechanical malfunctions, that she didn’t brake or swerve even after mounting the kerb and going through a fence?

The only other possible explanation I can think of is that she is a psychopathic murderer who wanted to kill little girls and deliberately aimed for them. Is that what you’re arguing? And even then, she also managed to fool what would have been many medics, including almost certainly faking objective tests results such as blood and ECG tests, into believing she’d had a seizure.

What other possibilities are there?

You can tell and you know exactly what I'm saying.

Justice is very different depending on cash.

@ShouldhavebeencalledAppollo - “childish” for saying that I would feel vengeful if I saw the person who killed my child driving again? Of course I’d do nothing but I would be beyond livid.

I think it is morally dubious to sound so callous. I have no involvement with this case or similar. Some of the posters on here are extremely biased and do seem cruel in their c’est la vie position.

There are loads of people who have been disqualified from driving after a seizure or seizures and then get their licence back after the appropriate time.

The risk she poses behind the wheel in future is no different whether she had her first seizure while driving or while doing the washing up.

She may well choose not to drive even if allowed, but that's up to her. There's no legal or medical reason to ban her once she's been seizure free for the required amount of time.

You have no idea what anyone reading that thinks you mean, and note that I'm not the only person to have asked you to clarify.

What I can tell is that you clearly think someone with money has used it to game the system. But both parties have money here, so which one do you think has used it to get a better outcome than they'd have got if they were poor? Or do you think they both have?

So she has responsibility because of the car, that’s legal in this country, she drove. That accounts for making up ridiculous fantasies?

Despite the fact there’s no proof the outcome would have been better or worse if it was a smaller car. A smaller car could have flipped and it have been ever worse.

Why on earth do you believe anyone should answer your question about what driving courses they have done? It’s beyond arrogant to believer you should be able to randomly go up to someone and question them and have them answer you.

and you add in some ridiculous information about her selling these cars, which actually isn’t true. But also irrelevant. What brands of cars have you had, sold one or travelled in. I assume you refuse to travel in a car if the another car of the same brand has been involved a fatal accident?

Who said we 100% know what happened? We know the results of the investigation. At the moment the inquest hasn’t happened. As it stands that is the outcome. All the other explanations are made up purely based on someone’s, unfounded opinion. Which isn’t the basis of the law.

Everything else is just made up nonsense, like her selling the car she drives. Completely made up. How is that helpful? If you have to make things up to argue your point, you don’t have one.

Childish to do the whole

‘if I were the parents and I saw her driving again I would….’, which you have done more than once but won’t say what you would do. Because you would do nothing. Most people come across people that like pretend they would do something faced with a person, but never actually would. It’s childish.

ah so you aren’t based, but people who disagree with you must be? Again childish.

It’s morally dubious to imply you would act against someone doing something legal. It’s morally dubious to insist people with certain conditions should drive, despite it being legal whilst admitting you know nothing about the condition.