If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And so do you think that the parents should be charged with letting their child break the traffic law? If you think that a driver should automatically be charged for drink driving, even if no accident occurs, as I assume you do, then surely the parents of this girl must be charged with breaking the traffic laws whether it contributed to the accident or not? And then you start investigating the cause of the accident.
Some people seem to be against charging the parents with the crime that they absolutely did commit.
Yes.
What I am against is blaming the parents (or the parents) for the accident without any more information. The fault for the accident could still lie with the driver.
What I'm saying, is people are making it out to be a terrible crime that their parents let them ride the quads, but these machines are relatively easy to control and she was under supervision, and presumably her father knew the area and deemed it to be safe. Which is why I think it's a tragic accident rather than an act of negligence.
I personally don't see a huge leap between private property and quiet roads near where you live, so long as they're safe. I mean, if a kid is going to lose control of the machine why is it more likely it will happen on the public highway? Again, we don't know all the facts of the matter - my neighbour lets his 3 year old drive a 'motorised vehicle on the public highway'. Of course it's one of those electric powered cars that goes about 2mph, but he still goes on the road outside his house under his dad's supervision. It's easy to see some simple points and make up your idea straight away, my argument is that it may well be more complicated than that and we should give parents the benefit of the doubt that they probably do know what is best most of the time and aren't complete blithering idiots. But - as I inferred in my above post - we live in a pessimistic society where people always assume the worst.
Aladdin - I'm not casting judgement on the other driver. In my first post I wondered why she was even arrested on charges of causing death by dangerous driving etc., and speculated 'DUI?'. Whereas many have rushed to her defence, the fact remains that she was arrested and the father was not. Now, it may well be all cleared up but as I said, the police don't arrest people for no reason. Many here have suggested the parents of the young girl should be prosecuted as soon as the words 'quad bike' and 'top speed 40mph' were mentioned.
One of my friends was in a geared 125cc go kart at age 7/8 that was capable of 60mph, and did injure himself so that he had to go to hospital. This was on private property, on a race track. It's not that exceptional nor should it be shocking for kids this age to be on 'motorised vehicles'. When they have more power of course there will be more risk - but in this case there is no evidence - just unfounded speculation - that the girls lack of experience was to blame.
There is a good reason why it is illegal for children to operate vehicles on public roads: because public roads are used by others. Who has stopped to think for a moment about the wellbeing of the woman driver who has been traumatised for life by this tragedy? Even if it wasn't her fault at all this will have a devastating effect on her, as being involved in an accident that kills a human being (and a child at that) tends to have.
The attitude some people here are showing towards children using vehicles ''on quiet secondary roads'', which apparently is not such a great deal, is no different whatsoever to somebody arguing having a few pints in the local pub and then driving a couple of miles on a quiet road is alright. Either everything is alright or nothing is.
exactly :yes:
I think she is a victim of the girl's parents' decision, and a reason to prosecute them for it.
This sort of comment absolutely incenses me. :banghead: A tragic accident could have been prevented by simply not letting a 7 year-old illegally drive a powerful motorised vehicle on a public road in the first place. Responsibility lies solely with the parents who allowed it to happen, and they deserve no sympathy. It's nothing to do with letting your offspring gain "life experience," and not just a lack of common sense; it's sheer recklessness and shows a clear disregard for the law to allow a primary-school aged child out driving on any road at all.
Well if you're finished frothing at the mouth, how are you 100% sure this accident would not have occured if she was not on a 'powerful motorised vehicle on a public road' - which you seem to be. You've taken the media's spin hook, line and sinker. Anyway, I think your comment:
"they deserve no sympathy"
sums you up quite nicely. It's much easier to cast judgement on people you've never met, and never will meet, based on some vagaries in a news article (when the writer hasn't met them either, nor was at the scene of the accident), and get 'incenced' at the inhumanity of it all.
Do you get incenced at the parents who let their kids on the public highways on ponies (capable of up to 40mph)? Since at least with a machine they have a cut off switch and only do what they tell you - an animal can do anything.
I believe people should take some personal responsibility for their own actions. The "deserve no sympathy" comment sounds harsh, yet it's precisely the fact that with some forethought a death could have been prevented which makes the case so tragic.
If the girl lost control of her quad and veered suddenly into the path of the other car then the girl and her parents are to blame.
If the girl did not veer suddenly into the path of the other car and was in control of the quad then the other driver is to blame- the bike was lit and the driver should have seen her.
It's really that simple, people. The driver who hits something is responsible and to be blamed unless the thing they hit came at them suddenly and without warning. People should be driving safely within their line of sight when on narrow and unlit country lanes and they should be expecting the unexpected. Most country lanes have something hidden around the corner.
The fact that the girl should not legally have been on the road on that quad is irrelevant unless the girl lost control of the quad and crashed it into the oncoming car.
Legally that's true, but if I'm driving down the road and some twat comes out of the junction in front of me I take steps to avoid hitting him (by braking etc). It may be his fault if I do smash into him, but an experienced driver can reduce the risk of being involved in crashes caused by idiots.
Now, I don't know the circumstances of this accident but I can easily see a scenario where it was the woman's fault, but it was an accident that a sixteen year old would have been able to avoid.
I think this is what it comes down to. We know very little information and so I think casting blanket judgements on either the parents or the drivers is very premature. Here's a new story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/30/nquad130.xml
Basically the family responding a little.
"Lizzie was a perfectly capable confident and able little girl.
She was brought up on the farm and in the village. She's been on that road riding her ponies and her horses thousands of times before, there is no point in regretting what happened, it could just as easily have happened if she had been on her horse, we don't know why the accident happened and maybe we never will.
"I don't know what will happen with the police investigation, we will have to take it as it comes and suffer the consequences should we need to."
So it appears the area was known well to the family and the daughter, she'd ridden on a horse before and it was apparently safe. So do people see now why I'm saying all the media stories quoting the 'top speed' of these 'powerful' machines are just putting spin on it? They only go as fast as you want them to.
For the record also, I've been out riding ponies on the road and I have no experience whatsoever
feeling guilty no doubt.
Well of course they feel guilty, what parent wouldn't :rolleyes:
Horses aren't quad bikes. If a pony sees it's going to hit something it'll stop, a quad bike won't.
Huh?
Have you ever ridden a horse?
It takes a lot of practice and even then they are unpredictable animals that can bolt at the slightest things, such as drain covers. They're much more difficult to ride than a quad bike. It was easy for me because the pony I was riding was following the one in front. But that's not to say what I was doing was any safer than going down the same country lane on a quad bike. I would argue from personal experience, my experience riding a motorcycle would make the quad bike for me much safer. Since they're twist and go they're daftly easy to control. Horse riding actually I think is *the* most dangerous outdoor sport.
I'm not sure why we're even discussing this point, people are still making the assumption that the quad bike was the killer, when in fact it was a RTA with a large vehicle and according to the only account we've had it would have happened regardless of whether it was a quad. Time and time again people on here talk like they were there based on one or two news articles that are all designed to make you think a certain thing. Ignore the rhetoric. Pay attention to the facts.
Aladdin: illegal act, yes, but reckless I'm not sure. If they knew the area and were supervised they were minimising the risk. We don't know the facts but as the father said it was a freak accident that could have happened whether she was on a pony or a quad. Again, as I've been arguing - is it always necessary to enforce the law absolutely? Or should there be some leeway for acceptable behaviour? Whether or not they should be punished for their 'illegal' behaviour which in the grand scheme of all crimes is completely petty and minor, I don't think it's right for people to make the link that this girl's death is due to her parent's 'recklessness'.
Kat: I don't see why horses on the road are annoying? I think drivers that think they own the road are annoying, especially when they create a danger for themselves and other road users by tailgating and passing too closely. Remember that horses aren't usually ridden in the middle of town but in quiet country areas where the people who ride them live there and ride them every day. So when the silly buggers in their big cars come for a visit and get annoyed at the same girl who rides her pony every day - they're the ones being ignorant and hogging the road - not the pony rider.
Are you serious? Ponies don't have road sense. Quads don't spook and they don't have a mind of their own either.
I know how to ride both bikes and horses and and I can tell you now riding a pony along the road is as dangerous (if not more) than riding a quad along the road.
There's still no evidence here that it was the fact she was on a quad that led to her death. It's still completely possible that the outcome would have been the same if she was riding a pony, riding a pushbike, or even walking. You don't know.
Illegal yes, but not necessarily reckeless.
Obviously the driver could ultimaterly be negligent in driving abilities, but the kid wouldnt have died if not having been in an illegal situation.
She could have been on a pushbike which is completely legal and she still could have died. That's what we've been saying.
The illegal act of riding the quad on the road didn't necessarily lead to her death.
Well what I'm arguing is that maybe the illegal situation had nothing to do with it. They could have been in a legal sitation - pony / pushbike - and suffered the same fate. There is no evidence anywhere except some people speculating that being on a quad bike automatically makes you crash. Whereas having ridden a quad, a horse, a geared motorbike, I found the horse probably the most demanding (although busy traffic junctions on a 125cc can be perilous because cars think 'cos they're bigger they have right of way). And this girl rode horses down that same lane all the time, according to her father in the news article - the only direct source we've got so far.
I assume when they take her riding they're talking about a rather docile pony (the type little children ride on everyday) rather than a thoroughbred racing horse.
I can certainly ride a motorbike better than I ride a horse (though to be fair I've probably rode a horse about a dozen times in my life and rode a motorbike several thousand). But then I started riding a bike when I was seventeen. When you're seven you don't have the same spatial awareness or ability to react safely when something goes wrong - which is why we can't get a licence to drive until we're seventeen, not when we're seven.
I'm making no assumption. It could have been that if a sixteen year old had been riding the result would be the same. However, it doesn't take much to see that a seven year old doesn't have the same reflexes or skills as an older driver and is more likely to be unable to react properly when something goes wrong.
Again, having friends who do ride and having been out on hacks once or twice, ponys aren't that docile. Some of them are even ex racers. Even though it's besides the point, we shouldn't try to pretend that riding a pony is any safer than a quad bike. Especially considering the statistics.
But the input you put into a machine = output in most cases, is the point I'm trying to make. With a live animal with it's own instincts and actions it's less predictable, which leads back to my argument that horseriding is more 'risky' than quadbiking, yet if she's safe enough horseriding there why say she's not safe to be quadbiking?
Agreed, though again she was being supervised and wasn't far from her home, she was on roads she knew. So they were minimising the risk. And the same could be argued for a 16 year old vs. a 40 year old. A lot of new drivers won't drive on demanding roads, they'll 'minimise the risk' so to speak so they can build up experience - sticking to familiar routes near where they live and avoiding motorways etc.
We don't know what the cause of the accident is yet and so can't really judge either way. I just think it's premature to condemn the parents as some have as 'fucking stupid' as one poster put it.
Doesn't matter. Even 'docile' ponies can be spooked. The point is riding quad down the road following the car at low speed is probably no more dangerous than riding a pony down the road.
It just highlighs the fact thaty it my not be the method of travel she was using that resulted in her death.
If they hadn't been leading the pony, but had just been letting her ride behind their car I'd have said that was stupid as well. (and from what I've heard it was dark as well which just seems to add to the negligence).
Near where I live young girls go out riding on their own all the time, albeit in daylight. Regardless, I think Skive put it better than I can
Though, I would like to know what happened i.e. was the girl at fault. But I don't know if that would get out in the press?
Just as an example of the spin, btw, with no more facts than we know:
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/kenoxley/2007/12/30/an-avoidable-tragedy-50081-20296287/
- thought by the journalist or his editor, no doubt
I feel for the parents, not only for their loss but because whatever happened they will be hounded by journalists and people will judge them full of their own righteousness. At Christmas and New Years must be the most difficult time to lose a child where you're celebrating family (not that any time is easy, of course), and it's a shame people don't seem to give them the benefit of the doubt.
In the words of one posters "they don't deserve sympathy". I can only hope you never find yourself in such a horrid situation yourself so that you don't have to live through those kind of judgements.