We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
18 May 14
10:00
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 12
....because shes got to do the 'school run'
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2014/05/15/boy-4-hit-zebra-crossing-driver-keeps-driving-licence-essex/?ncid=edlinkukpare00000648
Boy, 4, knocked down on zebra crossing - but driver keeps her licence
Rachel Betts said she needed driving licence for school run
By Liz Stansfield May 15, 2014
872041
Driver who knocked down four-year-old boy allowed to keep licence
A woman who knocked down a four-year-old boy at a zebra crossing then dragged him 120ft down the road has been allowed to keep her driving licence.
Rachel Batts, 28, from Essex, hit four-year-old Luke Spatt as he was walking home from nursery with his mum, Samantha.
The car then dragged Luke 120ft along the road. He was airlifted to hospital with serious injuries, which included a deep wound to his head. He was in hospital for nine days and needed three operations and skin grafts.
Ms Batts admitted careless driving but was given just six penalty points and a £250 fine.
Speaking at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court, Mike Allem, chairman of the bench, said a ban would normally have been considered, but Rachel's village location – and that she needed the car to get to work and take her son to school - was taken into account.
"We would normally consider disqualification but we have taken into account where you live," said Mr Allem.
"This was a very unpleasant result of a momentary lapse of concentration. We accept it was a low speed, but aggravated by the injuries to the child and it was on a zebra crossing."
Speaking at the hearing, Rachel said: "I don't know why I didn't see them. I agree I caused the accident, but I didn't see the child. I am extremely sorry and upset that this accident occurred."
A statement from Luke's mum Samantha was read out in court. She said:
"I was sure they had seen us. I remember thinking: 'Oh my God, it's not going to stop.' The car was between me and Luke and I could not do anything.
"I saw him get dragged under the car, it hadn't stopped."
Speaking to the Mirror, Philip Goose, spokesman for road safety charity Brake, said:
"In cases where drivers face disqualification we believe exceptional hardship should not be an argument accepted to ensure leniency.
"Road users who engage in risky behaviour that can kill and seriously injure should face tough penalties, however inconvenient, to deter dangerous behaviour.
"As part of Brake's Crackdown campaign we call for tougher penalties to protect the public by deterring dangerous behaviour."
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2014/05/15/boy-4-hit-zebra-crossing-driver-keeps-driving-licence-essex/?ncid=edlinkukpare00000648
Boy, 4, knocked down on zebra crossing - but driver keeps her licence
Rachel Betts said she needed driving licence for school run
By Liz Stansfield May 15, 2014
872041
Driver who knocked down four-year-old boy allowed to keep licence
A woman who knocked down a four-year-old boy at a zebra crossing then dragged him 120ft down the road has been allowed to keep her driving licence.
Rachel Batts, 28, from Essex, hit four-year-old Luke Spatt as he was walking home from nursery with his mum, Samantha.
The car then dragged Luke 120ft along the road. He was airlifted to hospital with serious injuries, which included a deep wound to his head. He was in hospital for nine days and needed three operations and skin grafts.
Ms Batts admitted careless driving but was given just six penalty points and a £250 fine.
Speaking at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court, Mike Allem, chairman of the bench, said a ban would normally have been considered, but Rachel's village location – and that she needed the car to get to work and take her son to school - was taken into account.
"We would normally consider disqualification but we have taken into account where you live," said Mr Allem.
"This was a very unpleasant result of a momentary lapse of concentration. We accept it was a low speed, but aggravated by the injuries to the child and it was on a zebra crossing."
Speaking at the hearing, Rachel said: "I don't know why I didn't see them. I agree I caused the accident, but I didn't see the child. I am extremely sorry and upset that this accident occurred."
A statement from Luke's mum Samantha was read out in court. She said:
"I was sure they had seen us. I remember thinking: 'Oh my God, it's not going to stop.' The car was between me and Luke and I could not do anything.
"I saw him get dragged under the car, it hadn't stopped."
Speaking to the Mirror, Philip Goose, spokesman for road safety charity Brake, said:
"In cases where drivers face disqualification we believe exceptional hardship should not be an argument accepted to ensure leniency.
"Road users who engage in risky behaviour that can kill and seriously injure should face tough penalties, however inconvenient, to deter dangerous behaviour.
"As part of Brake's Crackdown campaign we call for tougher penalties to protect the public by deterring dangerous behaviour."
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 57
|
By:
unbelievable
|
|
By:
It would appear that she was lying, and that nobody bothered to check.
She lives in Great Totham. Local bus timetable: . http://i58.tinypic.com/scqcyc.jpg |
|
By:
should be in prison
 |
|
By:
Agreed.
|
|
By:
This has made me so angry!
It seems that every week there is something like this that makes your blood boil but what can one do? She should have her license taken away for ever. Would the judgement have been the same if the child was killed? As it is, it's a minor miracle that he wasn't. I wonder if there is a way to protest the verdict. I hope there is and she get's the sentence she deserves, and also additionally for contempt of court. You know that we are governed by idiots, and bumbling old b@st@rds! |
|
By:
doubt if the fine gets paid
|
|
By:
Didn't see him Didnt feel car hit or hear people screaming ,beyond belief
 |
|
By:
It is beyond belief casemoney and you have to wonder how her defence was accepted.
Lengthy ban at the very least. |
|
By:
"Didn't see him Didn't feel car hit or hear people screaming, beyond belief,
That being the case why did she finally stop? |
|
By:
Guilty of careless driving but not dangerous driving.
|
|
By:
She needs to drive her son to school....so he doesn't get mowed down by the maniacs on the road
|
|
By:
Still going back to my question...."she didn't see him, and didn't know she hit him", so why did she stop?
|
|
By:
Now, I don't wish to suffer the communal abuse of the forum...but. There is very little detail in the mother's account, but I get he impression that the kid was ahead of her, on his own. That is the only way that I can see the car being between them. That really is a recipe for a disaster.
Any parent should have full control of their child BEFORE reaching the crossing 'Give me your hand' is all that is needed, although I would add that it should be to your left hand which puts the more robust parent on the 'impact' side. She should also NEVER assume that 'they have seen you'. Wait until the traffic STOPS. Regarding the sentence...far too lenient. Use the bus or a taxi. It has always seemed strange to me that people can appeal that loss of licence will cause inconvenience or hardship. If that is the case, then you should not be speeding etc. |
|
By:
What amazes me is how people are not aware that you should approach lights and crossings with care and be prepared to stop.
|
|
By:
happened just up the road from me
http://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/11214627.Woman_who_hit_four_year_old_boy_on_zebra_crossing_in_Witham__causing_serious_injuries__will_keep_her_licence/?ref=mr |
|
By:
wit-ham
how did she get away with lying in court that she needed her car when there is plenty of public transport there. |
|
By:
The family must appeal here!
|
|
By:
Most definitely AP.
|
|
By:
Well, I've just re-read what the woman and the mother supposedly said, and had a quick look at the link posted by Wit-ham.
The first thing that strikes me is how close the crossing is to the roundabout. It needs to be moved by about thirty yards. I can also see (depending upon much more detail than has been supplied) how it could be possible for a driver NOT to spot a four-year old on that crossing. The key questions, in my opinion, are: Which direction was the car coming from? Which direction was it going in? Where, exactly, was the mother, and where, exactly, was the child prior to the accident? |
|
By:
The speed limit outside schools is generally 20 mph.
I'd guess she was exceeding that. And she lied on court, she doesn't need her car. Perjury first, and a heavier sentence. |
|
By:
I haven't seen the detail as to which was just reviewed but if it was close to a roundabout the speed should be less on the approach, at least, but maybe it was on the exit where people are accelerating.
Sounds like a whole "mish mash" of detail, that should have been carefully considered, before the case hit court! |
|
By:
Call me a taxi. How do you know that she doesn't need her car? I accept that it would probably be possible to use taxis...but that would depend on a lot of other things that would need to taken into consideration.
I'm still wondering about the mother's remark of 'the car was BETWEEN her and the kid'. I wonder just how far they actually were from each other. Was the kid hidden (or even HIDING) behind the 'keep left' bollard? I reckon this accident is not as straightforward as one might think. Just my opinion, of course. |
|
By:
I live in a cul-de-sac with a school thirty yards away at the end. It is dangerous to go out my gate until the large vehicles go away. The school could not prevent people driving into the school so the had to narrow the entrance to prevent them.
Why do they need to get within yards of the school? |
|
By:
its the me me get out of my way generation, who don't give a feck about anyone else.
|
|
By:
possible she didn't see him ,even possible she didn't hear or feel the bump ,I would imagine there were people shouting etc yet she has not stopped for 120 yds ,I dont know about the rest of you but if I approach a zebra crossing I do so with caution ,more so outside a school ...
Bettor has hit the nail on the head ,wonder if she had any previous ? |
|
By:
Kincsem have u seen the arses or some of these mothers they cant walk mate ,the kids aint much better ,the thought of having to walk 15 minutes would be horrendous to them ...
|
|
By:
We would normally consider disqualification but we have taken into account where you live," said Mr Allem.
that is not justice a person must be punished strictly on what they did otherwise a person who could not convince a judge they needed their car, would have been disqualified different punishments for same offence not justice, the crime is the same I accept this was an accident, but to have justice, our punishments must be consistent or you don't have any justice...justice is not a reality show |
|
By:
I accept losing ones driving licence affects some people more than others
but strictly speaking I don't think we can do this some people have kept their licence if they need it for their job, this is a tricky area one way round it, would have been to massively increase penalty points and fine, then at least you are attempting justice |
|
By:
naydam 19 May 14 17:08
Call me a taxi. How do you know that she doesn't need her car? See my 11-49 post yesterday. |
|
By:
Zebra crossings are a recipe for disaster.
I live off a main road that has two. it's a 30 but most probably average 40, and a high percentage of the time i cross with my three year old, we have to wait for 2 or 3 cars that either don't care or don't see you. Naydam is spot on. You HAVE to wait for the traffic to stop before putting a foot in the road in front of most of these ignorant fcks, that can't spot a flashing beacon and scan the road BOTH sides. But most pedestrians don't even look let alone wait for the traffic to stop - especially teenagers, hence the recipe for disaster. It's a poor system as things stand and it's only getting worse. Personally I think get rid of the lot and put in puffin or pelican even though I know as a driver it will sometimes add time to my journey. |
|
By:
Call me a taxi. I agree that, on the face of things, she probably (or possibly) could get by without a car. The problem with reaching that conclusion is the amount of information that is lacking that COULD be pivotal.
For example, she might have six kids at four different schools. Some of family MAY have 'special needs'. What is her job and where is she based? There may well be many more details to this that have not been considered worthy of mention due to restricted space or just poor reporting. I can quite easily picture a scenario in which the driver never had a chance of seeing the kid, but that would depend on a lot more knowledge of what ACTUALLY happened. This is something we will never know. Please don't interpret that as meaning that I think it was the kid's fault. I don't...but I DO wonder why he seems to have been ahead of, or behind, his mother. |
|
By:
My daughters live in a rural area.
When you have more than one child of school age they tend to get into the same school as the eldest child. |
|
By:
And if just one child is over 11, they can get on a bus with all the other kids over 11.
I went to school in London just under 2 miles from my house, there was no such thing as a 'school run' back then. Bus it or walk it. |
|
By:
Please don't interpret that as meaning that I think it was the kid's fault. I don't...but I DO wonder why he seems to have been ahead of, or behind, his mother.
not really Naydam sorry...if you are driving a car with kids about......there is only one rule...you are MEGA CAREFUL! |
|
By:
Were there 'kids about'? All I know is that she failed to see the kid involved in the collision. There may well have been others about. I don't know why she didn't see the kid. But I DO know that he wasn't with his mother. I've only got what was in the original post as a source of information, but I'm not at all sure that the facts of what happened are the same as one would normally think...ie, mother and child crossing road, hand in hand, and maniac speeding driver runs them down. I doubt that this was anything like that.
|
|
By:
Some of the magistrates deciding these driving offences punishments are incredible mugs
Tony Pulis was done for speeding and he allowed to keep his licence on the basis that , if he couldn't drive himself to training by 7am , the quality of the clubs training would suffer , and Stoke might be relegated , which would cause widespread unhappiness to the people of Stoke  |
|
By:
Hehe And it was TRUE, Tober! (although how he got away with it I'll never know!).
|
|
By:
'' STOKE BOSS TONY Pulis has managed to blag his way out of losing his driving licence with an original excuse in court.
The Potters manager was caught in his BMW doing 96mph in a 60mph zone after his side had trounced Bolton 5-0 back in November, which meant he clocked up over 12 points and earned himself an automatic ban. However, when the 54-year-old faced the charge with his solicitor Mike Stephenson, he pleaded that if he was stripped of his licence it would be detrimental to the Premier League status of Stoke City FC and the companies who invest millions into the club – despite the fact that they currently sit 14 points above the drop zone. According to The Sun, Pulis added that he would be unable to use a driver for fear the he would leak information with regard to transfer dealings which he discussed on his mobile phone, meaning visiting the several charities he supports would also be impossible. They (Stoke) would suffer if they were relegated as a result — and the children who he would not be able to assist and the people of Stoke could suffer if Mr Pulis lost his licence,” Stephenson said. Astonishingly, he was let off with a £2,500 fine and has to pay £85 in costs but can still legally drive. '' so ridiculous i suspected i might have made it up but it the court really did buy that You'd think the magistrate would add extra to the ban for his solicitor taking the piss with such drivel |
|
By:
Even if the people of Stoke would be depressed , surely it would be offset by the delight of the rest of the league's fans not having to watch his team anymore.....
TT , have to think he couldnt believe his luck |