You've no heart, You Lot! I was nearly in tears reading that! All that good and important work for the little children and local businesses. The pride that he has brought to the town. All in danger because of a teensy-weensy moment of inattention whilst his eye were firmly fixed on the road. How could he be expected to notice that his speed had crept up a bit?



They were tears of laughter! You gotta admit that any convicting magistrate would have felt like Attila the Hun!

She is very lucky she did not kill that child

you have a right to your opinion of course Naydam

I am always putting up mine

Ebulgery. I have no problem whatsoever with you putting forward your views. In fact, I welcome them. It gives ME a chance to further pontificate. Whatever that involves. 
I WILL say, though, that as soon as the whole forum come to a united conclusion, I get very worried. I usually have a little look into the 'Lay' side of the story. Devil's Advocate, if you like.

The way I see this is that everybody immediately pictures a child in the middle of the road, being struck by a car because the driver is not paying attention. Maybe on her mobile. Maybe checking her make-up.
I thought exactly the same UNTIL it seemed to be a Universal Chit Chat Clamour for Justice. UCCJ for short. So, I re-read the report, and studied the picture in the OP's link.
We don't know where the mother was. We don't know where the child was. We don't know, ALTHOUGH WE ASSUME, that it was frontal contact. If it was then, surely the driver would have seen the kid. She doesn't say that she didn't see the mother. But what if it was SIDE contact?
We know that the child and the mother are not together because she says that the car is BETWEEN them. How is that possible? That is NOT the way to cross the road. Who has taught them road safety? Was the kid playing hide-and-seek behind the bollard and ran back to mummy...straight into the side of a car the HE couldn't see driven by somebody that could see HIM. If the mother was still on the pavement (on her mobile phone), the driver's eye would be on HER. So when she says "I thought they'd seen us"...there was actually any US, it was just her.

In conclusion: The mother has already crossed and is waiting for her kid to catch up. As usual, he is dilly-dallying and mucking about. She is standing at the side of the road. She is seen by the driver, but makes no indication of wanting to cross so the driver proceeds, oblivious of he little boy behind the bollard. As the car draws level with him, he sets off to catch up with mummy, and runs straight into the side of a car. The driver's eyes are on the woman with the mobile phone/scratchcard at the side of the road. She doesn't see the child run into her car as it actually happens behind her. She doesn't hear it, perhaps because of loud music or maybe even because there is no actual impact but the kids clothes snag on the vehicle and he is dragged down the road. People shout stop etc. She stops.

A scenario that fits the scene and the statements. No high speeds required. No lack of attention on the driver's part. It explains why the driver didn't see the kid, why the kid didn't see the car and why the mother thought the driver had seen her. A sequence of minor details which trigger an accident.

Majority of blame? For me, it would have to be the kid's mother and her poor concept of danger.
But, of course, it might have been a frontal impact which changes everything. Well, nearly everything.

Some cell as the mother for poor safety training. They could mull it over together.

fair

the betfair jury decides

I think all of us would case...she is very lucky she has not got this child's death on her conscious

Kids do anything, 4 years old????

She has driven between the mother and her child, so a four year old is on his own????????????????

It could well have been a Merc 4 x 4 Case, or some such SUV vehicle

with large wheels, the child may have been hidden by her bonnet

but she should have been aware of all possibilities????????????????