Woman knocks down 4 yr old, drags him 120ft but gets to keep her license.......

unbelievable

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

should be in prison

Agreed.

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!

doubt if the fine gets paid

Didn't see him Didnt feel car hit or hear people screaming ,beyond belief

It is beyond belief casemoney and you have to wonder how her defence was accepted.
Lengthy ban at the very least.

"Didn't see him Didn't feel car hit or hear people screaming, beyond belief,

That being the case why did she finally stop?

Guilty of careless driving but not dangerous driving.

She needs to drive her son to school....so he doesn't get mowed down by the maniacs on the road

Still going back to my question...."she didn't see him, and didn't know she hit him", so why did she stop?

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.

What amazes me is how people are not aware that you should approach lights and crossings with care and be prepared to stop.

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

wit-ham
how did she get away  with lying in court that she needed her car when there is plenty of public transport there.

The family must appeal here!

Most definitely AP.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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?

its the me me get out of my way generation, who don't give a feck about anyone else.

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 ?

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 ...

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

Hehe And it was TRUE, Tober! (although how he got away with it I'll never know!).

'' 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

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

I'll bet, Tober!

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!

I admire your efforts to be fair to her Naydam

but this is a serious case of bad driving

She has hit somebody on a zebra crossing, she has hit a child and worse still she does not seem to have noticed

There is a very serious case of lack of attention to driving here

She must have a ban, and a retest must be ordered, before she ever drives a car again

I am sure it is inconvenient to her

but at the moment her driving does not appear to be good enough to be allowed to drive

She is very lucky she did not kill that child

She needs a few more driving lessons

you have a right to your opinion of course Naydam

I am always putting up mine

unable to use a driver for fear the he would leak information with regard to transfer dealings which he discussed on his mobile phone

So is that an admission of using his phone whilst driving.

What a load of sh1te.

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.

She needs a few days in jail to understand the true meaning of "inconvenience".

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

you are being very very very to the driver Naydam

still you have a point

I cannot accept it of course, But I have had my say

fair

None of us knows what happened

I feel a driver should be defensive in these situations, anticipate anything

still we have put up our opposite points of view

the betfair jury decides

I feel a driver should be defensive in these situations, anticipate anything

spot on Blue ,wonder if it was a Merc 4 x 4 ?

Tbh If I ran a child over and it were my fault , I would seriously reconsider driving again ..

Has this woman actually shown any remorse for her actions ?

As stated I would be very suprised if she has no previous ....

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????????????????

on a zebra crossing as well...that is pedestrian territory

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????????????????