Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Death by dangerous driving surely?
is to charge her with dangerous driving and lock her up?
she's lost her husband through her own pig ignorance and naivete.
I struggle to feel any sympathy for someone who drives into water because their satnav tells them to do so, to be honest, especially if that results in the death of another person. That isn't heartless, it's sensible.
or diminish the obvious emotional impact of what's happened. I just don't really get why we're feeling sorry for her.
That's a pretty obvious one.
They'll already feel guilty as hell, I think the memory of what they've done is enough punishment really.
Same with some cases of negligent parents - if they're not feeding their child or something then yes, they're to blame, but if it's just the case that they didn't pay attention for a few seconds and their child ran into the road or something ... seems so harsh to add extra pain on top of what they'll already be experiencing
and she will have to live with that for the rest of her life. We've all made mistakes while driving some easy to make and some fucking stupid.
Thankfully they probably won't result in the death of the person we love most in the world.
Whatever other judgement she should have made, I think she's suffered enough. I can't see what inflicting further punishments on her would achieve.
she drove into the ford because she believed it was considerably more shallow than it was. a judgement call unfortunately turned out to have tragic results.
but it does seem like she was at least partly to blame for his death. There are always depth posts at fords (I think), and it was kinda careless of her to drive into it without checking.
Depth post and a big yellow warning sign.
That's a bigger ford than I can recall coming across. I've only ever come across stuff along the lines of http://goo.gl/maps/ZIiL8
especially her last memories of him panicking.
not sure how relevant the satnav is really. sounds like the same thing would have happened without it.
satnavs should take these things into account
would the map tell them that the ford was flooded?
I can see someone who's umming and erring over whether its safe thinking "well the Satnav's telling me this is okay so they must know what they're talking about."
I tried to find the road on google maps, it seems to be in Berkshire not Hampshire (maybe not the same one) and there is a depth post there.
but do you know how deep the water needs to be before it's unsafe? i don't. i'd use my judgment, obviously, but how do i know that's any good?
that article quotes someone as saying "A car can be moved by just six inches of water".
I also didn't realise that fords are apparently not covered in theory tests, seems a bit silly.
poor thing didn't know *what* was going on
not really an 'unprovoked' attack, bit much though.
The coroner urged drivers to avoid using the ford, adding: ''I have quite enough work to do, I do not need any more.''
I find that he was being tried for witchcraft, and paid for his lack of guilt with his life, oo-bee-doo
Fords are designed to be driven through (when not flooded obvs) and the article states she thought it looked shallow. If there were no warning signs and it looked driveable, no dangerous driving charges here.
."After the accident, somebody placed a sign at the ford stating: ''Idiots with twatnavs, meet thy doom'', although it has since apparently been removed.".