Taxi driver gets £250 fine for paralysing 4 year old girl

2456

Comments

  • Evo102Evo102 Posts: 13,630
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    You have to wonder how she was able to hit her head if she was correctly in her seat.

    I'm sure that will come out in the wash when the insurance companies get the case in the civil courts. But I doubt we will see it reported in the media, only the settlement figure possibly.
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's ok everyone, we don't need to be concerned about this guy being directly responsible for wrecking a child's life, because the minutiae of the law tells us he's not such a bad guy after all. I just read a sanctimonious essay that said so.
  • tim1964tim1964 Posts: 829
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The point that everyone, esxcept Ethel_Fred, has missed it that (according to the article) the girl was "thrown forward" into the back of the front seat causing her injuries.
    When hit from the rear the passengers will be forced backwards INTO the seat and therefore absorbing a lot of the energy of the impact. The "equal and opposite reaction" that is moving forward would be reduced by their seat belts, (a nasty bruise across the chest but not much else). For the girl to be thrown forward she must not have been in a child seat. If that was the case then the driver of the car she was in should be fined for having an unrestrained passenger in his car.

    So basically the severity of the injuries were the fault of the parents.
  • Evo102Evo102 Posts: 13,630
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    It's ok everyone, we don't need to be concerned about this guy being directly responsible for wrecking a child's life, because the minutiae of the law tells us he's not such a bad guy after all. I just read a sanctimonious essay that said so.

    Ever rear ended someone or know someone who has? If the passenger(s) in the vehicles hit hadn't walked away but for whatever reason were left with life changing injuries would you or your friends/relatives suddenly become really bad guys?
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They'd certainly be responsible and utterly deserving of far harsher punishment than a mere fine.
  • Evo102Evo102 Posts: 13,630
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    They'd certainly be responsible and utterly deserving of far harsher punishment than a mere fine.

    So you want to punish based on the outcome not their actions, can't you see how that is a rather dangerous route to go down?
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's a route we already take when we see fit to.
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    It's ok everyone, we don't need to be concerned about this guy being directly responsible for wrecking a child's life, because the minutiae of the law tells us he's not such a bad guy after all. I just read a sanctimonious essay that said so.
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    They'd certainly be responsible and utterly deserving of far harsher punishment than a mere fine.

    Right, so what would you recommend?

    And how do you think that will help?

    The criminal justice system is there to rehabilitate, protect and punish.

    You can't punish somebody in any meaningful way for an accident - it doesn't accomplish anything. The public don't need 'protecting' from him, nor does he need 'rehabilitating' as far as we know.

    So why exactly do you want to throw him in prison (or worse)? Just to make emotionally driven loons feel better?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Gordie1 wrote: »
    I live in the area, and at the time it was said the driver was messing with his phone, thats rumours of course, but it was what was being said the next day, the driver also apparently hurt his leg in the crash and was complaining at the scene that both paramedics were attending the young girl when one of them should have been attending him.
    Hearsay of course, but that is what was being said at the time.
    I don't think it is really on to post things that 'were said'. All kinds of ill-wishers may have said all kinds of things, sometimes for very discreditable reasons. We have already had people on this thread fantasising that they would like the driver to be crippled - for what appears to be a bog-standard rear end shunt - and I'm sure that if they had been by the roadside they would have invented all kinds of exacerbating factors. The police will have done a very thorough investigation, which will certainly have involved taking his phone and checking it for incoming and outgoing calls.
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    Although it doesn't mention it explicitly, I would presume (?) that his insurance will be paying out for support for the little girl, which is precisely the point of it. Not that it's any consolation per-sey, but the girls family shouldn't be incurring any expense as a result of this.
    Oh yes, definitely. People nearly always go for compensation after a rta because there is money available. I used to work in a spinal injuries unit, and I can tell you, if you have to have one of these horrible injuries, you definitely want it to have been in a traffic accident. A high level spinal injury from a road traffic accident might get you, say, three million; if you fall off your balcony and get exactly the same injury you get nothing at all. It would really have been better if the Mail had not run the story in the way they have: of course the family are mad with grief and lashing out, but it is inexcusable to try and fan flames of hatred against the taxi driver in that way.
    tim1964 wrote: »
    The point that everyone, esxcept Ethel_Fred, has missed it that (according to the article) the girl was "thrown forward" into the back of the front seat causing her injuries.
    When hit from the rear the passengers will be forced backwards INTO the seat and therefore absorbing a lot of the energy of the impact. The "equal and opposite reaction" that is moving forward would be reduced by their seat belts, (a nasty bruise across the chest but not much else). For the girl to be thrown forward she must not have been in a child seat. If that was the case then the driver of the car she was in should be fined for having an unrestrained passenger in his car.

    So basically the severity of the injuries were the fault of the parents.
    I guess it is easy for a child to tamper with a seat belt. But the same thought had occurred to me. (Not about them being fined; I really do think they have suffered enough. But it is an odd way to get a major head injury, and not easy to explain, if she was correctly strapped in.)
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    They'd certainly be responsible and utterly deserving of far harsher punishment than a mere fine.

    Not 'they': YOU. In a moment's misjudgment or inattention, you accidentally rear-end another car. How many years would you hope to serve in prison?
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tim1964 wrote: »
    The point that everyone, esxcept Ethel_Fred, has missed it that (according to the article) the girl was "thrown forward" into the back of the front seat causing her injuries.
    When hit from the rear the passengers will be forced backwards INTO the seat and therefore absorbing a lot of the energy of the impact. The "equal and opposite reaction" that is moving forward would be reduced by their seat belts, (a nasty bruise across the chest but not much else). For the girl to be thrown forward she must not have been in a child seat. If that was the case then the driver of the car she was in should be fined for having an unrestrained passenger in his car.

    So basically the severity of the injuries were the fault of the parents.

    It's a very interesting and crucial point.

    IF the article is accurate, it couldn't have happened.. could it? :confused:

    If she was in a child seat it can't have been properly fitted/strapped in.
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    To punish him. The fact that you dismiss that option with a stupid argument doesn't preclude me from choosing it.
  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    Obviously, cases like this are always a tragedy but I don't really see how there's any great injustice at work.

    Trouble is, imposing harsher penalties based on the outcome of an incident, regardless of the events, is never going to be a deterrent because nobody thinks they're going to end up killing somebody because they were speeding, or whatever.

    I wouldn't want to speculate too much about this specific case but it seems like, even considering the serious outcome, the fact that the guy was only charged with DC&A suggests that his contribution to the outcome was was small, if pivotal.

    Dunno what options are currently open to courts but it does occur to me that, perhaps, any driver who's involved in an accident which has serious consequences, regardless of their level of involvement, could have some kind of "probationary" status applied to their driving licence.
    That way, if it really was just a one-in-a-million set of circumstances that will never be repeated, the driver won't be affected by the endorsement but if it turns out they really are a bit of a plonker who often gets into minor bumps then the courts could take further action to prevent another serious accident occurring.
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not 'they': YOU. In a moment's misjudgment or inattention, you accidentally rear-end another car. How many years would you hope to serve in prison?
    If I caused an accident and it had this result, I personally would never ask to be released.

    Not everyone is as desperate to hide behind legal technicalities as you.
  • NilremNilrem Posts: 6,938
    Forum Member
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    It's ok everyone, we don't need to be concerned about this guy being directly responsible for wrecking a child's life, because the minutiae of the law tells us he's not such a bad guy after all. I just read a sanctimonious essay that said so.
    Whilst this is a terrible case, thankfully the law goes by facts not emotion.


    There are a host of options open to the police and CPS for such cases, but it sounds like they could only go for the lowest possible.

    Now either the police and CPS were completely wrong, or the actual circumstances of the accident were such that the only charge that could fit was the one they went with.

    You can have a life changing accident due to such things as the sun getting in your eyes unexpectedly, sneezing, being distracted momentarily by a passenger, having an animal run out in front of you, or simply (and this is actually a big one for airline pilots), because you spot or become aware of one potential danger and are paying attention to it, when something else happens*.

    Anyone who says they've never had an "oh ****" moment when driving because the sun has blinded them for a moment whilst going over the top of a hill/being reflected off another car, or missed the brake light on the car in front because you were looking past it (as you're instructed to do - remember the "look ahead, not just on the car in front" bit of your lessons) at say kids by the side of the road, is lying.
    Fortunately most such accidents don't do much more than damage pride and a couple of body panels or bumpers.
    But in the odd case the results are much more serious.

    Fortunately the law looks at what you did, or did not do, before the accident, not what the results of the accident were when it decides on what charges.

    From memory this sort of accident is one of the most common, as it happens hundreds of times a day with people doing things like watching the traffic approaching on a roundabout, and not realising the car in front has stopped.






    *IIRC numerous aircraft crashes have been attributed at least in part to the pilots becoming fixed on one issue and not noticing something more urgent happening (IE they become fixed on problem, then don't realise they're losing height rapidly).
  • NilremNilrem Posts: 6,938
    Forum Member
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    If I caused an accident and it had this result, I personally would never ask to be released.

    Not everyone is as desperate to hide behind legal technicalities as you.

    In that case I assume you're either the best driver in the world, or have already handed your licence in?
    It could happen to you tomorrow, it could happen whilst you reverse out of your drive, or when you are approaching traffic lights and the car in front breaks hard when you were expecting them to continue through.
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    To punish him. The fact that you dismiss that option with a stupid argument doesn't preclude me from choosing it.

    Punish him what for? Why? To what end?

    Punishment is still meant to accomplish something. It shows somebody their actions were wrong when they thought otherwise.

    I doubt as he was crashing into the side of that car he was thinking "this was my intended plan all along, what a good idea this is!".

    People shouldn't be punished for accidents, it makes no sense.
  • Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    People shouldn't be punished for accidents, it makes no sense.

    Well, that's not strictly correct, is it?

    If it was an accident the guy have done nothing worthy of punishment and wouldn't have been charged with anything.
    He was convicted of DC&A and the punishment he got was commensurate with that offence and, given that the CPS certainly will consider the consequences as part of their prosecution, the fact that he didn't get charged with anything more really says a lot about how minimal his overall part in the tragedy was.

    Course, the trouble is, if you take this rather vindictive idea of justice to it's extreme you're going to get situations where, say, some old dear who's polished the supermarket floor to a high-shine is going to get locked away for 30 years when some customer slips over and breaks their neck.
    I can't imagine many people being terribly happy with that sort of outcome either.
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    Punish him what for?
    For ruining a child's life.
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    Why?
    Her life is ruined, he is responsible and deserving of more than a monetary fine.
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    To what end?
    Retribution for his actions and an example to other inattentive drivers.
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    Punishment is still meant to accomplish something. It shows somebody their actions were wrong when they thought otherwise.

    I doubt as he was crashing into the side of that car he was thinking "this was my intended plan all along, what a good idea this is!".

    People shouldn't be punished for accidents, it makes no sense.
    Nor does your idea that a criminal had to be thinking they were in the right to be deserving of punishment. Also, make your mind up. The guy has been punished and you seem to be ok with the punishment you deem appropriate. Or should he have even walked off scot free in your opinion?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    If I caused an accident and it had this result, I personally would never ask to be released.
    I don't believe you. You sound very young, perhaps not old enough to drive?
    Not everyone is as desperate to hide behind legal technicalities as you.

    Punishing people for what they have actually done is not a 'legal technicality'. It is the essence of justice.

    It is customary to charge people with driving without due care if they run into the back of another car and the police are called. It is one of the commonest accidents on the roads; the number of incidents in a year is huge. If there are no aggravating factors, that is the appropriate charge, and Aziz got the appropriate punishment. What, one wonders, would have been your preferred charge? Driving without due care when you are not at all cute and there is an adorable little girl in the car in front? - maximum sentence death?
  • HypnodiscHypnodisc Posts: 22,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    For ruining a child's life.
    Her life is ruined, he is responsible and deserving of more than a monetary fine.
    Retribution for his actions and an example to other inattentive drivers.

    Nor does your idea that a criminal had to be thinking they were in the right to be deserving of punishment. Also, make your mind up. The guy has been punished and you seem to be ok with the punishment you deem appropriate. Or should he have even walked off scot free in your opinion?

    This is the very point of administrative punishments (fines, points) - there may have been some 'fault' but by no means was it a criminal action. It was by all accounts a nasty accident.

    You have a very authoritarian and dare I say it, sadistic view of crime and punishment, and what it should be used for. Luckily emotion doesn't generally factor in to court cases.

    I wonder if people's thoughts are centred around the fact it's a youngish Asian taxi driver. What if it was a stereotypical 'nice old man' (maybe one of your grandparents let's say) that was also white-British who had made the mistake?
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't believe you. You sound very young, perhaps not old enough to drive?
    Well it's mighty convenient for you that any answer I give that doesn't suit your preconceptions can be dismissed so easily. And no, I'm old enough to drive, so please hold the sage and wizened advice sandwich on patronising bread, for the love of god.

    Punishing people for what they have actually done is not a 'legal technicality'. It is the essence of justice.
    Well good, he's ruined the kid's life, let's punish him for it.

    It is customary to charge people with driving without due care if they run into the back of another car and the police are called. It is one of the commonest accidents on the roads; the number of incidents in a year is huge. If there are no aggravating factors, that is the appropriate charge, and Aziz got the appropriate punishment. What, one wonders, would have been your preferred charge? Driving without due care when you are not at all cute and there is an adorable little girl in the car in front? - maximum sentence death?
    Causing serious injury by dangerous driving, maximum sentence available. Any more questions, or would you like to move on to speaking down to someone else who might be remotely impressed by it?
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Car driving is inherently very dangerous. I think some people think it isn't and so when a severe injury occurs think it can only be because "someone did something very wrong"
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hypnodisc wrote: »
    This is the very point of administrative punishments (fines, points) - there may have been some 'fault' but by no means was it a criminal action. It was by all accounts a nasty accident.

    You have a very authoritarian and dare I say it, sadistic view of crime and punishment, and what it should be used for. Luckily emotion doesn't generally factor in to court cases.

    I wonder if people's thoughts are centred around the fact it's a youngish Asian taxi driver. What if it was a stereotypical 'nice old man' (maybe one of your grandparents let's say) that was also white-British who had made the mistake?
    Your post basically says I'm a sadistic racist, because I want a more appropriate punishment for someone permanently ruining the life of an innocent child.

    And I'm the one whose opinion is raising eyebrows here?
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Is there any purpose in continuing a discussion such as this?
  • Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    Car driving is inherently very dangerous. I think some people think it isn't and so when a severe injury occurs think it can only be because "someone did something very wrong"
    It is inherently dangerous, that's why driving without due care or attention is doing something very wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.