Funny how the initial reaction is always "OMG! Speeding driver" until the facts come out.
BBC on 22nd July wrote:
'Speeding driver' killed boy, 3
A speeding motorist ran over a three-year-old boy playing in the road and carried on his journey without stopping, a jury has been told.
Full ArticleThe truth of the matter is, of course, completely different
BBC on 28th July wrote:
Jury's verdict in boy road death
A jury has cleared a motorist of causing the death of a three-year-old boy by dangerous driving.
An alternative charge of driving without due care and attention is still being considered.
Darren Jenkins, 25, told Cardiff Crown Court he had not seen Joshua Venn-Howells and he had not been speeding.
Joshua died in hospital a day after being struck while playing at Willowbrook Drive in the St Mellons area of Cardiff in July last year.
The prosecution claims Mr Jenkins was speeding and did not stop after hitting Joshua, who was "clearly visible".
The defendant has said he was checking his mirrors, after spotting a car ahead which he thought may have been about to pull out, when he "felt a loud bang" on the right driver's side wheel.
He told the court: "I thought it could have been an animal, it could have been a person." He said he "panicked" and drove on to go home.
Shoes
His father later persuaded him to go the police within half an hour of the incident, the court heard.
Mr Jenkins said he had felt "gutted" when he later learnt a boy had died.
The jury has been told a boy fitting Joshua's description was repeatedly seen running across the road before the incident.
One witness has said she was forced to slow down while driving along Willowbrook Drive to avoid the barefoot boy, who was aged two or three. Joshua was not wearing shoes. (my emphasis)
The prosecution's case is that Joshua was "clearly visible in the road" as he was seen by a woman driving behind the defendant moments before his car struck the youngster.
The woman said she saw Joshua standing in the marked or "hatched area" of the road when he was struck by the Peugeot 307, which did not brake or slow down.
She has told the court she was driving at about 40mph on the 30mph road and that she thought the Peugeot was going faster than her vehicle.
So what we have is a 3yr old kid has escaped from the house (as evidenced by the lack of shoes) and is buggering about in the road, running back and forth but oh no, the very first coverage of this article blithers on about speed.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing the kid's parents of bad parenting. I know how easy it is for kids of that age to escape. My cousin of a similar age managed it at a McDonalds birthday party, went running up the road and ran into the side of a boy racer style car who was leaving a driveway knocking himself down. I actually felt more sorry for the kid in the car he was absolutely shitting himself and convinced he was going to get locked up for this, and most of the public who were passing were also convinced he'd killed my cousin (who turned out to be fine)
The driver may be guilty of due care an attention, but who really expects to find an unaccompanied baby in the hatched area? Maybe a motorbike, but a baby?
I'm not even convinced on the due car and attention charge. He says he was checking his mirrors as he believed a car ahead was about to pull out on him, he'd also moved into the hatched area which is consistent with the belief that someone is about to pull out on you. I know that we're supposed to have eyes everywhere at all times, but we're only human and having identified a hazard or an incident occurring, it's natural to devote most of your attention to the problem at hand. Mirror check to determine if sudden braking is possible, and move out the way of the oncoming hazard. We can't all be advanced drivers, sadly.
Google Maps link to the road in question. Arow does not indicate where the crash happened. I'm on GPRS right now, so don't fancy searching the satellite photographs for part of the road that has a hatched area.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
