Seven-year-old girl dies in quad bike crash

Former Member

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=5I2TTFQDAH015QFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/27/nquad227.xml


So I'm wondering - why aren't the parents on Bail themselves for letting two kids on the public road in the first place?

Former Member

stoopid stoopid tragedy, how sad and what a sorry end to a little life.

Former Member

I don't blame the parents - it was a tragic accident but I know a lot of kids who drove quads / mopeds around when they were relatively young. Having said that though, 7 may be too young. I can't really remember how grown up I was at that age.

Maybe the other woman was DUI?

Former Member

It's not just allowing her to drive the quad, which is crazy enough, but to do so on a public road with other vehicles around.

As it happens the driver who collided with her has been charged for her death for being over the drink limit. But charging the father as well would not be out of order.

Former Member

Some parents don't realise how dangerous they are. They wouldn't let their kid drive the family car so why allow them to ride one of these.

Former Member

IMO the woman who crashed into the quad is also a victim. It's not like she was driving up a quiet neighbourhood cul-de-sac, that's a fookin windy country lane- who would take their kid for a drive up there?

Former Member

Yeah I agree, for a start the quad for a child of 7 would be fairly small - a lot smaller then a car and I assume a lot lower then an adult motorbike.

The woman's eyes would be focused to look for cars and bikes on the road, not to look for a car with two kids behind it.

Whether she was over the limit or not - I think the shear fact that those kids were never supposed to have been on the road in the first place needs to be taken into account.

I assume they don't have rear brake lights and all the other various lights a normal car or road bike would have?

Pitch black, unlit road - I blame the parents, two kids 10 and 7 on the road when the legal age is 16, with helmet and insurance ..

I'll be appalled if all that isn't taken into account and I think the parents and other adults involved need to be charged as well with something - not just blame it all on the other driver

Former Member

Why is the range rover driver being prosecuted? How was she supposed to know an extremely underage driver on a quad that isn't road legal was going to come round the corner on an unlit and dangerous road?

The parents have my sympathies, but they are idiots.

Former Member

Whowhere wrote: »

The parents have my sympathies, but they are idiots.

Exactly the same here. It's pretty much their fault that their daughter's dead now, could have prevented it with a bit of common sense..

Former Member

Whowhere wrote: »

Why is the range rover driver being prosecuted?

Because there's the possibilty she was D.U.I.

Former Member

Whowhere wrote: »

Why is the range rover driver being prosecuted? How was she supposed to know an extremely underage driver on a quad that isn't road legal was going to come round the corner on an unlit and dangerous road?

The parents have my sympathies, but they are idiots.

:yes:
The BBC have implied that the driver was under the influence of drink or drugs, which in these circs they will hammer her for. it does sound like the collision was inevitable though, under those circs, its just terrible the little girl died. That woman will never forgive herself, and as has been said, they shouldnt have been there in the first place.

Former Member

The quad bike was well lit, both front and rear, and the driver of the other car appears to have been over the drink-drive limit. The fact that it was a quad bike really seems to be neither here nor there; chances are that the girl would have died if she'd been on a horse or a pushbike too, which she could have legally used on a public road.

If she'd been on a horse there wouldn't have been this "hang the parents" bullshit. She was hit by a drunk driver in a Range Rover.

Former Member

Oh come off Kermit. She was a young child completely unqualified to drive a quad- least of all on a public road. Had she had survived and been a few years older she would have been arrested and prosecuted herself for driving on a public road without qualification. Being the age she was, her parents should certainly be done for negiglence.

Do you know the circumstances of the accident in detail? Do you know it was the Range Rover driver's fault? That she was over the limit does not necessarily mean she caused the accident.

Of course the parents of the child have been completey irresponsible idiots. Presumably it's okay to put a child in charge of a car on a public road so long as it has the lights on, then? Cars are much safer than quads so everything's dandy. It's up to the other drivers to avoid colliding with it.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

She was a young child completely unqualified to drive a quad- least of all on a public road. Had she had survived and been a few years older she would have been arrested and prosecuted herself for driving on a public road without qualification. Being the age she was, her parents should certainly be done for negiglence.

:yes:

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

The quad bike was well lit, both front and rear, and the driver of the other car appears to have been over the drink-drive limit. The fact that it was a quad bike really seems to be neither here nor there; chances are that the girl would have died if she'd been on a horse or a pushbike too, which she could have legally used on a public road.

So what? She couldn't use a quad bike legally on a public road, and was unfortunate enough to find out why. What has the legality of riding a horse got to do with anything? Would you still be blaming the drunk driver if the kid had been driving a car instead of a quad bike at her parents approval? After all, a car is even more road-worthy than that? Makes not a shite of difference, it's illegal. Letting a kid drive on the road illegally is a greater crime than drinking and driving. Both should be prosecuted.

Skive

The girl could have just as easilly been on a pushbike, with the same end result.

Yes the parents were irresponsible but it wasn't the fact it was a quad that caused the accident, it was the pissed up driver.

Former Member

Skive wrote: »

The girl could have just as easilly been on a pushbike, with the same end result.

Yes the parents were irresponsible but it wasn't the fact it was a quad that caused the accident, it was the pissed up driver.

Do we know that yet though?

It is standard procedure to breathalyse all drivers involved in an accident regardless of circumstances and fault. If the woman was found over the limit she would have been automatically arrested, and according to our laws charged with causing a death even if she had done nothing wrong whatsoever during the accident and could have not avoided hitting the child even if sober. That's the way the law is at the moment, but does not mean the other party should always be blameless. For all we know the world's best and most careful driver, with the world's safest car and completely sober could have not avoided a collision either.

Former Member

How do you know that the incidental fact wasn't that the driver had had a few drinks, and that a fully sober driver wouldn't have had exactly the same accident? Don't put your kids on a country lane with an illegal vehicle which they are far too young to control even on private land, and you don't need to find out do you?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

It is standard procedure to breathalyse all drivers involved in an accident regardless of circumstances and fault.

Exactly, and so everyone engaged in illegal activities during the incident should be arrested and charged too, and it should be up to the courts to decide. And in this case that includes the parents.

Former Member

Personally I think it was a tragic accident. If the woman in the Range Rover was drunk then obviously she should be charged but to charge the parents with something, don't you think the death of their 7 year old daughter isn't enough already?

Former Member

squeal wrote: »

Personally I think it was a tragic accident. If the woman in the Range Rover was drunk then obviously she should be charged but to charge the parents with something, don't you think the death of their 7 year old daughter isn't enough already?

Maybe charge the driver for driving over the Limit but I don't think she should be charged for causing death by dangerous driving or something similar - I think if the woman driver gets a murder charge then the parents need to be charged with something - if the driver gets a lesser charge then I think the parents can be let off

What I'm getting at is I just don't think the woman driver should be on Manslaughter / murder type charges cos no sober driver would expect to drive in an unlit lane and suddenly come across 2 kids on quads behind a regular car. Just as if a kid might run out infront of you - which I've had happen to me once and they did it on purpose playing chicken with the traffic so I saw them running back and forth in my mirror as I swerved to avoid them.

Former Member

It's a terrible tragedy, but in the same way as (I would imagine) the parents of a child who is allowed to climb over a third floor balcony railings and then falls to their death would be prosecuted for negiglence, the parents here should. Regardless of whose fault it was, it is breathtakingly stupid and careless to let a seven year old child operate a 100 cc quad vehicle on a public road.

Former Member

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article626589.ece

some interesting new details in that article - they knew the driver and took the kid home first.

Former Member

that is interesting but we should remember is the Sun... however, if thats true, think makes it even more tragic

Former Member

How are they going to hope to prove that the driver was under the influence of anything at the time of the incident when she'd been at home for a few hours after before she was arrested?

Former Member

There was no indication that the dead girl was driving the quad irresponsibly or had lost control of the vehicle. Therefore the legality of her being on the road is irrelevant- the same result would have happened had the dead girl been legally riding a horse or a bike.

DG wrote:

no sober driver would expect to drive in an unlit lane and suddenly come across 2 kids on quads behind a regular car.

But a sober driver would be driving slowly enough along a narrow and unlit country lane to be able to stop if they come across something unexpected. Which in the country can be any number of things- I've come across escaped horses and sheep several times, for instance.

Former Member

why is it illegal if it's ok to ride it on the road then?

Former Member

It's illegal mostly because of insurance reasons, and because a lot of kids won't have the necessary control to ride it properly.

My point is that just because its illegal it doesn't mean it's the girl's or the parents' fault. Equally it might not be the other driver's fault, it could just be one of them things. It happens. The only fact we have so far is that the vehicle that hit the litle girl was being driven by a drunk.

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

There was no indication that the dead girl was driving the quad irresponsibly or had lost control of the vehicle. Therefore the legality of her being on the road is irrelevant- the same result would have happened had the dead girl been legally riding a horse or a bike.

There is no indication that the driver of the Range Rover did anything wrong either. In fact there is no indication of pretty much anything. All we have is facts. One fact is that the driver has been arrested on suspicion of driving while over the limit. And the other fact is that it is illegal for 7 year old children to drive quad bikes on public roads. Had her father respected the law and used a bit of common sense there would have been no accident with other road users, drunk or otherwise.

But a sober driver would be driving slowly enough along a narrow and unlit country lane to be able to stop if they come across something unexpected. Which in the country can be any number of things- I've come across escaped horses and sheep several times, for instance.

Really? So are you suggesting all accidents that happen on country lanes are caused by drunk drivers? LOL!

Former Member

One of the reports I read said the woman came around a narrow bend maneuvered around the father's car but wasn't expecting two mini quad bikes to be hidden behind that car

I'm assuming the kids were driving really close behind their father's car and so the father's car would have blocked the view of the quads behind it.

And if he moved the girl and took her home probably caused a lot of internal damage himself.

I guess if they arrested that woman at home some time later she can claim she was sober and then had some drinks after the accident to calm her nerves.

I think I remember an episode of the practice where a drunk man has an accident and calls his lawyer and the lawyer says if you got a bottle start drinking it now in front of everyone and just claim you got drunk afterwards.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

Had her father respected the law and used a bit of common sense there would have been no accident with other road users, drunk or otherwise.

If me aunty had bollocks she'd be me uncle.

Relevant? Hardly.

Really? So are you suggesting all accidents that happen on country lanes are caused by drunk drivers? LOL!

She must have been travelling at a fair whack to not be able to avoid the procession. And she was drunk.