2 Kids killed on E-Scooter

[zetec]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp32239lle3o

This is local to me and an absolutly tragic case.

But what happened? I'm guessing that due to no causing death by dangerous/careless driving charges the driver was driving legally and totally unable to avoid hitting the scooter, panicked and drove off, calling family members etc asking for advice on what to do.

Had she stayed and called 999 would the kids have survived? Traumatic head injuries I am guessing not.

The posts in the comments section of the local rag are calling her a child killer. Harsh?

[mac96]

Harsh maybe but we don't know enough. She made several phone calls- why didn't the recipients tell her to call 999?

Were there other people at scene? Were they threatening?

Why did the dd charge get dropped? Did scooterists caused the collision?

Too many questions.

[Foss62]

The assumption must surely be that the Police decided that the only offence was not stopping/reporting an accident?

As her mental state must have been at least questionable at the time, it seems strange that a jail term has been mentioned.

I think the minimum age for hiring a legal e scooter is 17 ..

[Gareth79]

mac96 said:

Harsh maybe but we don't know enough. She made several phone calls- why didn't the recipients tell her to call 999?

Were there other people at scene? Were they threatening?

Why did the dd charge get dropped? Did scooterists caused the collision?

Too many questions.

It was 18:25 in February, so completely dark at that time. There was probably enough evidence from the scene to work out where each vehicle was, and estimate the speed of each at the time. My guess is the scooter drove over a give-way line into the path of her vehicle, so it was essentially their fault.

Presumably she's not very bright, and called people who either aren't very bright, or who are used to getting away with driving/criminal offences and received very bad advice.

Assuming she wasn't excessively speeding if she had stayed at the scene and called an ambulance it seems very unlikely she would have faced any action at all.

[irc]

You need to undergo many hours of training and pass a test to use a car in which you are relatively safe. Why do the police appear to be giving a free pass to widespread use of illegal E-scooter and E-bike use on the roads, usually without helmets?

[pavarotti1980]

irc said:

Why do the police appear to be giving a free pass to widespread use of illegal E-scooter and E-bike use on the roads, usually without helmets?

Do they?

Is it not more of an issue trying to catch the bar stewards when they take off

[CHLEMCBC]

Two up on an illegal scooter? If I was callous I might say the boy killed his sister...

[CHLEMCBC]

irc said:

Why do the police appear to be giving a free pass to widespread use of illegal E-scooter and E-bike use on the roads, usually without helmets?

How is that apparent to you?

Is there a helmet requirement for illegal vehicles of this type?

[Frimley111R]

The driver should not have just driven off but in such a case people do unpredictable things. She was probably terrified of the consequences/in shock etc. but its hard not to assume two kids riding a powered scooter in the dark probably made a fatal mistake. Tragic but they should never have been on one, let alone at night, sharing it.

[paulw123]

She should have reported it so is probably due something for not doing that. Jail would be pointless. Thought our prisons were full anyway.

I have to say these electric scooters and e-bikes absolutely terrifying me when out driving at night, they have absolutely no regards for the laws of the road. Owners are often dressed head to to in black with no lights and weave through traffic.

Benefit of any doubt needs to go to the driver of the legal, licenced, well lit car in the event of a collision in my opinion.

[CHLEMCBC]

paulw123 said:

She should have reported it so is probably due something for not doing that. Jail would be pointless. Thought our prisons were full anyway...Benefit of any doubt needs to go to the driver of the legal, licenced, well lit car in the event of a collision in my opinion.

She should. Given her name doesn't sound very British, maybe she's from somwhere where you can't trust the police but that's still no excuse. The police/CPS have clearly given her the BOTD for the actual RTC.

[mac96]

Gareth79 said:

mac96 said:

Harsh maybe but we don't know enough. She made several phone calls- why didn't the recipients tell her to call 999?

Were there other people at scene? Were they threatening?

Why did the dd charge get dropped? Did scooterists caused the collision?

Too many questions.

It was 18:25 in February, so completely dark at that time. There was probably enough evidence from the scene to work out where each vehicle was, and estimate the speed of each at the time. My guess is the scooter drove over a give-way line into the path of her vehicle, so it was essentially their fault.

Presumably she's not very bright, and called people who either aren't very bright, or who are used to getting away with driving/criminal offences and received very bad advice.

Assuming she wasn't excessively speeding if she had stayed at the scene and called an ambulance it seems very unlikely she would have faced any action at all.

Agreed. I didn't mean the police did not have the answers, just that we don't.

[Foss62]

CHLEMCBC said:

paulw123 said:

She should have reported it so is probably due something for not doing that. Jail would be pointless. Thought our prisons were full anyway...Benefit of any doubt needs to go to the driver of the legal, licenced, well lit car in the event of a collision in my opinion.

She should. Given her name doesn't sound very British, maybe she's from somwhere where you can't trust the police but that's still no excuse. The police/CPS have clearly given her the BOTD for the actual RTC.

It seems highly unlikely that anyone would be given benefit of doubt when two people have died. There must have been clear evidence that the driver was not at fault: positions on road, vehicle damage, vehicle lighting presence or absence etc.

[croyde]

Nearly hit one tonight. I was at the limit 20mph and the stupid sod cut right across the road.

Not a junction, they were just crossing the road. Dressed in black, almost invisible.

Sadly surprised that fatal accidents don't happen more often

[mac96]

Foss62 said:

CHLEMCBC said:

paulw123 said:

She should have reported it so is probably due something for not doing that. Jail would be pointless. Thought our prisons were full anyway...Benefit of any doubt needs to go to the driver of the legal, licenced, well lit car in the event of a collision in my opinion.

She should. Given her name doesn't sound very British, maybe she's from somwhere where you can't trust the police but that's still no excuse. The police/CPS have clearly given her the BOTD for the actual RTC.

It seems highly unlikely that anyone would be given benefit of doubt when two people have died. There must have been clear evidence that the driver was not at fault: positions on road, vehicle damage, vehicle lighting presence or absence etc.

To be guilty of an offence there has to be no reasonable doubt. So, no evidence, not guilty.
The fact that someone died really shouldn't make any difference to that.

[Foss62]

mac96 said:

To be guilty of an offence there has to be no reasonable doubt. So, no evidence, not guilty.
The fact that someone died really shouldn't make any difference to that.

The difference would be that the road would be closed for hours, measurements and photos taken etc. and then the Police and authorities would spend a lot of time on analysis. So there would be a much higher chance of a correct decision (one way or the other), than there would be with a lesser incident.

[mac96]

Foss62 said:

mac96 said:

To be guilty of an offence there has to be no reasonable doubt. So, no evidence, not guilty.
The fact that someone died really shouldn't make any difference to that.

The difference would be that the road would be closed for hours, measurements and photos taken etc. and then the Police and authorities would spend a lot of time on analysis. So there would be a much higher chance of a correct decision (one way or the other), than there would be with a lesser incident.

Agreed.

[oyster]

croyde said:

Nearly hit one tonight. I was at the limit 20mph and the stupid sod cut right across the road.

Not a junction, they were just crossing the road. Dressed in black, almost invisible.

Sadly surprised that fatal accidents don't happen more often

Now you’ve done it!

[croyde]

Hope not, but it does seem crazy growing up in the elf and safety free 70s that there were rules about what you could ride/drive on the road which were rigidly enforced.

Yet now it seems to be a free for all despite the presence of health and safety, certificates, high viz etc.

I thought all private scooters were banned and ebikes, like my latest acquisition, are restricted to 250w/15mph.

They are everywhere though!

But wow betide driving a car/motorbike at 22mph in a 20 zone.

[L1OFF]

I worked with a chap a few years ago, cause the death of a young girl who ran out between parked cars. He wasn't prosecuted as he was driving ok. Strangely his left arm became paralysed (no physical issues it just wouldn't work). Never really saw him smile or laugh again and he took his own life a few years later.