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
they're dangerous unpredictable beasts that could damage my car and do slow up my journey - annoying! yes, I know what kind of roads they ride on, I drive on the same roads.
of course they deserve sympathy... I have daughters and I'd be wrecked if something happened to them.
But that doesn't change the fact that a seven year old shouldn't be driving a quad bike on a road and that is her parent's fault. That they probably also know this just makes their pain the more acute
Aye, but that may not be the cause of the crash. Innit!
This was an incredibly thin road (look at the photos of the crime scene) that could barely fit two cars side to side, let alone the 4x4 type things they were both driving. After dark. With no lights on the roads, just the vehicles. The kids probably would've been safer on a bleedin motorway. And also not with there parents vehicle blocking them from view from all oncoming traffic.
However bloody well all involved knew the area this was a seriously stupid thing to do. I'm sure the woman driving the other car could have been more alert and at least some of it was down to her but over all this was not her fault. The parents put there kids in the situation, they had complete control over this not happening. The woman didn't. The last thing she ever would have expected was two kids on quad bikes right behind the car she just passed. I just don't get it, it makes the mccanns look like einstein. Fields everywhere, why'd they have to use roads that are dangerous enough when you're belted up in a car. At least it's pretty damn sure they'll never do it again. I feel for them having lost their child but....... just you gotta think before you do shit, especially if it's involving children.
Most of roads are like that in my immediate area and I see plenty of pony and kids on bikes. They've got every right to be there. If the road is windy and narrow then generally good driver set their speed accordingly. Roads like that should be safe enough for bikes and riders.
If the quads and were on the correct side of the road, this is no excuse whatsoever. As a driver you have to be aware of what you can't see as much as what you can.
This is just specualtion of course. When you say you 'sure'; you arn't really.
Ever heard of fences and hedgerows?
But that doesn't mean they were responsible for the accident.
Just as if the women had turned out to be drunk, it still may not have been her fault.
Oh yea my post wasn't aimed at you, just some of the quite frankly outrageous comments that some people come up with.
You haven't mentioned my question about riding at the side of the road...? And i'd guess kids on bikes on these roads would do the same thing. You don't know the driver didn't set there speed accordingly, and there has been no mention in the news that they didn't so i would guess they were driving at a reasonable speed.
But they aren't safe at all, they're roads, cars driving on them make them not safe. I wouldn't be opposed to us all reverting to bikes and horses for general travel but it ain't gonna happen, so don't let your kids ride quad bikes on the same roads as cars. Simple as.
But the roads were thin as i said, barely enough space for two cars. It's a road where if a cars coming towards you, you move towards your side of the road and afterwards move back, that may be where the accident occurred.
No i'm not sure, but what i said there was i think siding towards your opinion anyway so i don't know why you mind. I've emphasised that everything else i've said here is me speculating anyway.
Yep i have, hedge surrounding a field vs oncoming vehicles, not really a competition regarding risk factor i'd say.
Horse generally take up one sid eof the road. As a driver you're suppposed to pass 'slow and wide'.
Car's arn't the only users of the road. All roads bar motorways and some dual carriage ways are meant to be safe enough for bikes and horses. As a driver you have to be aware of that, and aware of pedestrians on roads where there are no pavements.
The point is if it were someone on a horse, on a bike or someone on foot there wouldn't be this uproar about this.
May have been that way your right, and therefore the driver's error.
eh?
I was pointing out that the suggestion of riding cross country on other people land wasn't a good one and alomost certainly not possible.
:yes:
Maybe what I've said sounds moralistic or judgemental, but they've brought upon themselves any criticism they receive by their actions alone. I feel sorry for them because they seem devoid of sense or perspective, and I'm sure they've now gained (the hard way) some of the valuable 'life experience' you mentioned earlier.
I hope so too, by doing everything possible to make sure my children aren't placed in such circumstances in the first place, for their own safety. Surely any self-respecting parent would do the same?
For a start by not buying a quadbike for a child still at primary school and letting them test it out on the road, irrespective of how much money I might have.
But you've just plucked this out of thin air. How are they devoid of sense or perspective? We really don't know any of the specific circumstances to be able to make judgements like that. By all accounts, from the little evidence we do have so far it seems to be a freak accident that could have happened regardless of whether the girl was on a quad or not. This is based on the father's testimony, we've not had any other evidence as such so I don't see why people keep making assumptions contrary to this? As such, how does the parents 'reckless' act of letting their child on the road = responsibility for her death.
At that age would you let your child go horse riding? Or go karting? Or off-road quad biking? If not, what age would be appropriate? There is no right or wrong age as such to be exposed to these things. They all carry risk, as does walking to the shop. I mean, I'm well aware some parents these days don't even let their children wander from the front garden without a minder, but I think banging on about her being on a quad bike is fruitless because from all accounts so far there is nothing to suggest it was the quad bike that caused the accident.
In the Times article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3101602.ece their neighbour states that “My children don’t hack out their ponies in the afternoon because the roads are too dangerous, they use it as a race track.” The family would have local knowledge, they would be aware that "the country roads around Blackmore were often used as a short-cut to nearby Chelmsford."
So just how many more factors did they need before they started thinking that the situation might be dangerous??
Shyboy: "how does the parents' "reckless" act of letting their child on the road = responsibility for her death?"
They let their child out inexperienced and unsupervised, I think that makes them responsible. If a child was out walking, an adult should have accompanied and supervised them. If a child was riding a push-bike, they should have had practice off-road and in daylight beforehand, gaining experience.Yet the child had none of this.
There is no right or wrong age to be exposed to things like horse-riding. I might put my child on a pony when it was old enough to sit up alone, as long as it was under supervision with safety equipment, to minimise the risk of an accident.
Shyboy: "but I think banging on about her being on a quad bike is fruitless because from all accounts so far there is nothing to suggest it was the quad bike that caused the accident."
The quad bike didn't cause it; the fact that she was too young to properly control it rather increases the chances of an accident occurring. Wait and see what the post-mortem declares as cause of death next week, but it's undeniable that if she hadn't been on that road in the first place then there would have been no accident for her to be involved in. Her parents who provided the means for her to be in such a situation, and so they bear the responsibility.
But equally if the woman in the Range Rover had stayed at home with a nice cup of tea there would have been no accident for the girl to be involved in.
Your statement is utterly stupid.
Unless the girl lost control of her quad and veered into the path of the oncomiong car then the responsibility lies with the driver of the oncoming vehicle. I'm glad she wasn't a drink-driver as the conviction would have destroyed her life too. But unless the girl lost control then the oncoming car should have been driving slowly enough to see her and to avoid her. You should only drive as fast as you can see, something a lot of people forget on a country road.
My point, and Skive's point, is that being on an illegal vehicle doesn't automatically make her and her parents culpable. It's highly probable that the same thing would have happended had she been riding a pony and she would have been legally allowed to do that.
Also, either the girl was riding too close behind her father's car and that's why she was hit, or her father was "not supervising" her. Which is it?
Agreed but we don't know she was 'too young to control it properly'. But certainly being on a new vehicle there is increased risk. But was this a highly elevated risk or not so serious? Especially since her father said she's ridden ponies down that same stretch of road thousands of times.
That's a bit of a given though. Any accident you're in wouldn't have occured if you weren't there. She could have been there on a bicycle and the same thing happened?
I don't agree here. For example, if parents provided a bus pass to a child and the bus overturned and their child was injured, it's hardly their fault. However, if you reword it so that if the quad bike was responsible, then the parents are responsible because they let her use it when it wasn't safe to do so and an accident resulted.
That statement wasn't stupid at all.
It's not remotely equal that if the woman had stayed at home the accident wouldn't have happened because the same thing could have happened with another car further along the road. If the parents had kept their children at home then there is no possibility that that accident could have happened.
Also, if this journey had gone safely id think it very likely that they would have done it again, and the same thing could have happened the next time, making that other woman even further out of the picture. The fact it happened the first time they did it probably just shows even more how idiotic and dangerous it was.
I've thought this all the way through this thread with comments like 'Well it could of happened if she was on a pony/bicycle/pogo stick'
What the fuck was a 7 year old girl doing on any form of transport on an unlit road at night trailing along behind her dads Range Rover ?
Or equally the other woman could have crashed into a tractor, or a sheep, or the Reverend Desmond Tutu.
If the girl wasn't there there wouldn't have been a crash. But she didn't crash into yourself, which makes your point simple to the point of idiotic.
Quite right too.
Never let a child out of the house, they might get hit by a car. In fact, don't have children at all, just to minimise the risk even more.
She shouldn't have been on the quad, but the quad was lit.
We've all walked along unlit roads at night because in the countryside sometimes you have to.
Point is, the outcome could have been the same, we don't know it was the lack of experience that caused the accident.
If it was her first time definately as learning to ride a pony is fairly difficult, but a quadbike is pretty straight forward. And she wasn't alone, her brother was there and so was her father.
We're all just guessing what could have happened, what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't guess because we don't know. I've seen nothing anywhere that says that her being on a quad bike in the dark was the cause of the accident. If you did want me to guess, I did so in the first post - the woman was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. (or words to that effect). So I guessed was she drinking, based on the only evidence we had. The parents haven't been arrested for negligence. The police are treating it as a 'tragic accident'.
That implies that there was nothing suspicious. No culpability. No negligent manslaughter. Which is why, until we know more, I'm going to not make any assumptions and treat it the same as the police (who are handling the case and know more than any of us) are - as a tragic accident. I mean, even the father has said that it could have happened whether she was a horse or bicycle and that nobody involved actually knows quite what happened yet.
I think before any link causative link is established between the quad bike and the death then we should treat the legality of letting a minor on a quad on the road and the accident seperately.
And people are still using hyperbole 'powerful machine'. It's pure propaganda / spin. I mean, I've seen a bicycle travelling at 100mph (search youtube lol), yet if someone is knocked over when they're on a bicycle you don't say 'tch, they shouldn't be on a machine capable of 100mph anyway'.
I know that, i just think it was a stupid idea to let a kid on the road on those circumstances.
And i don't think they should be prosecuted. Not because i think 'they've gone through enough already' because if you're going to have that attitude you might as well not prosecute parents who murder their children because 'they've gone through enough already'. In this case, i don't think prosecutting the parents would achieve anything.
I completely agree and I wouldn't have done the same thing. But that doesn't mean that they are directly responsible for the girl's death. Unless that little girl veered off into the path of the other car then the girl- and by deafult her father- is not to blame for the death.
I don't think her father should be prosecuted either- in the circumstances a police caution is more than enough. Although I bet the girl's mother doesn't agree.
My point is that there's a good chance that the same thing would have happened had the girl been on that road legally. And unless it is shown that the girl crashed into the car, and not the other way around, then I won't change my mind.
apart from the fact she was on a quad bike for the first time in the dark and she got hit and is now dead from it.
Fucks sake, its obvious.
Thats the REASON its illegal. Because you ave a small child in charge of a vehicle even in broad daylight its an accidnet waiting to happen, but lettig them do that in the dark was fucking RIDICULOUS. There are safety laws for a reason.
Exactly. I don't think it's a hard concept to grasp.
Just say I was driving dow the road after a few jars and some twat pulled out immediately in front of me. Nothing I could do even if I was sober. Who's fault is it for the crash?
Of course I'd be stupid for driving pissed but it doesn't make me responsible for the accident.
That fact that this girl was driving this quad illegally is not necessarily connected to the cause of the crash.
That's not a cause.
Both. Riding too closely behind a large car that obscures any oncoming driver's view increases the chance of being hit. On a dark narrow country lane it would be difficult to stop if another vehicle suddenly appeared from behind the large car, while you were driving aware of all the hazards that were visible to you at the time, ie. only the large car and not what it concealed behind.
Her father was not supervising as he was busy controlling his own car, and in no position to intervene on her behalf to avert an accident.
Kermit: "It's highly probable that the same thing would have happended had she been riding a pony and she would have been legally allowed to do that."
Not necessarily; by your argument, any oncoming driver would be driving as fast as they can see, and I think a pony would be visible enough on either side of a road, so the driver would slow right down and an accident may have been averted.
Shyboy: "we don't know she was 'too young to control it properly'." Younger than 16, as the law says, is too young. (Although 16 isn't much better)
The power of a push-bike isn't the same as a motorised quad bike. It can't be said how the accident happened, whether the child veered into the oncoming car's path or not. But it can be said why the child was present at all; because her parents allowed her to be there.
Shyboy: "if parents provided a bus pass to a child and the bus overturned and their child was injured, it's hardly their fault. However, if you reword it so that if the quad bike was responsible, then the parents are responsible because they let her use it when it wasn't safe to do so and an accident resulted."
The bus pass scenario is incomparable as a third party (a bus driver) would be involved, which is not the case here, so should be left aside.
The parents provided her with the quad bike and then let her use it when it wasn't safe, which resulted in an accident. That makes them culpable enough.
Like Skive said, that's not the cause. It may well be that the quad was the cause - I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying we should reserve judgement until we know.
That's no excuse I'm afraid. Many things are obscured by cars travelling in the oposite direction and a good driver shoudl always be aware of that.
The only way that this is the girls fault is if she veered into the path of the car. I'm afraid there really is no other excuse for hitting a vehicle with a light on the other side of the road.
If she had been riding a pushbike with a light? Totally legal and probably harder to see than this quad.
Doesn't mean she wasn't in control. The law was broken - nobody's disputing that.
The power of vehicle makes no difference. Whether she veered into the path of the car is the crucial issue. She coudl have just as easilly veered off on a pushbike.
That coudl be said for the majority of accidents involving kids.
Shyboy: "if parents provided a bus pass to a child and the bus overturned and their child was injured, it's hardly their fault. However, if you reword it so that if the quad bike was responsible, then the parents are responsible because they let her use it when it wasn't safe to do so and an accident resulted."
They are culpable of letting her break the law, not of causing the accident as far as we know. It's not rocket science.
If the driver was driving at a safe speed then she wouldn't have hit the girl unless the girl veered off the road into her path.