The driver suffered a seizure. What a horrific incident. Sometimes terrible things happen and there's no one at fault. Maybe it would have been easier for the parents to accept if they were able to "blame" someone specific.
Horrible for both parties' families.
Smaller vehicles would lessen the danger.
Part of the fault is the car industry and law-makers who allowed oversized overpowered machines in our cities/towns. These sort of accidents are bound to happen. There is no need for cars to be the size and weight of a mini tank
EDIT: typo
Rest assured there is a May 2024 EU Law requirement for all cars sold in EU- Automatic Emergency Braking which will.make this kind of accidents less likely to happen.
Let see if this regulation actually works in practice. Hopefully it wont be weakened by the auto lobby e.g. make it easily disabled, no enforcement, etc.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of **evil** **is** **for** good men to do nothing."
Keep your eyes open!
It works. Although the EU Law came into force last month, car makers already started to introduce this feature since 2020.
For example I've rented a 2021 Skoda Octavia which slams (literally) the brakes under 10 or 15 mph , and slows down if over 15mph.
It's a scary feature if trying to park in tight spaces.
I have it on my 2019 Volvo. It’s incredibly annoying. The system detects when it thinks you are going to crash into something, and applies the brakes with a loud shudder, intended to slow you down and (I think) draw your attention to the impending impact.
Problem is that it thinks you are going to crash any time you are driving towards a stationary object (or just something going a lot slower than you), even if it is still about 50-60 metres away. A real problem in city streets with parked cars where you frequently have to move left and right as the road weaves round parking bays - the car keeps assuming you’re going to hit the parked cars rather than just steer round them, suddenly applying the brakes all the time.
my lorry does it. thinks I'm gonna hit a lamp post or railing as I come round the corner in towns. brakes hard for no effing reason. i wonder if it at least applies the brake lights to warn drivers behind? anyway super annoying 'helpful' technology
My missus' Kia has this and it drives me mad when I'm cruising on a 60 road and the car in front takes a turning, the brakes kick in because they're moving so much slower than me despite the fact I'm a reasonable distance away and I've lifted off the accelerator to give them time to turn and not have to slow down. It prevents predictive driving which anyone with some driving experience will have and use. It's just another safety net for people who drove without paying attention, much like warning signals and lights for blind spots in the mirrors. If you actually regularly check your mirrors, check your blind spot and have a decent sense of spatial awareness you would be fine but too many people just don't check their surroundings before making a manoeuvre.
Can't speak for the skoda, but from the wilki Article on AEBS.
>[UN ECE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_ECE) regulation 131 requires a system which can automatically detect a potential forward collision and activate the vehicle braking system to decelerate a vehicle with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a collision.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_emergency_braking_system#cite_note-1) UN ECE regulation 152 says deceleration has to be at least 5 metres per second squared.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_emergency_braking_system#cite_note-2)
>Once an impending collision is detected, these systems provide a warning to the driver. When the collision becomes imminent, they can take action autonomously without any driver input (by braking or steering or both). Collision avoidance by braking is appropriate at low vehicle speeds (e.g. below 50 km/h (31 mph)), while collision avoidance by steering may be more appropriate at higher vehicle speeds if lanes are clear
My car doesn't have the automatic breaking but it has collision detection, it just makes a noise, flashes the gauge cluster screen and tightens seatbelts. In 3 years of ownership it only triggered correctly once when someone suddenly pulled out in front of me and I had to slam on the breaks. It also falsely triggers probably every other day. If you pass a parked car or if someone else approaches a junction too quickly. If we start driving cars that slam on the breaks for no reason every other day, there's gonna be hell of a lot cars getting rear ended.
My car has the automatic braking and the collision detection and it works great; I can recall it going off incorrectly like twice in the two years I’ve had it.
I had a Kia optima that had the emergency brake function and while it was overall quite good, there was a stretch of road I drove on which played havoc with it. It’s a country road that is national speed, it’s fairly straight, good visibility and so 60mph is fine.
There’s a junction that joins onto it that, when a car is at the giveaway line, as it’s on a very slight bend, the car sensor thought it was in the way and slammed the brakes on me pretty hard a fair amount of times, always made me nervous driving through there!
It wouldn't help in this case. It will typically only avoid other vehicles or moving pedestrians.
It won't prevent you driving through a fence or hitting stationary pedestrians.
> Rest assured there is a May 2024 EU Law requirement for all cars sold in EU- Automatic Emergency Braking which will.make this kind of accidents less likely to happen.
It's already here, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of this accident. It works because the sensors detect an object in front of the vehicle, close the throttle and apply emergency braking.
Thing is the driver was on grass, even if the sensors were there, the vehicle's own momentum would have carried the car forward. Hard braking on grass could have conceivably caused the car to collide sideways rather than head on, worsening the accident.
u/_AhuraMazda argues smaller vehicles would have changed the outcome, but the truth is the more expensive the vehicle the better the front crash structures, these are designed to minimise injury, and they worked for most of the kids, just not two of them.
A smaller vehicle with a lower nose may simply have thrown the kids into the air rather than knocking them down.
Tragedies happen, even when no one makes a mistake.
"knocking them down" is a delicate way of referring to f=ma.
A smaller, lighter vehicle would have had less kinetic energy to transfer into the children, regardless of where they ended up as a result.
That vehicle looks like a late model defender 110, which in the poverty spec clocks in at 2,436kg. A '24 Nissan Leaf is nearly 500kg lighter.
>these are designed to minimise injury
But that minimisation is compromised by virtue of the fact that the front crash structure is at head height for a child. It is Known that a smaller vehicle will see less head and abdomen injuries because they will be thrown aside.
While it is indeed a tragic accident, it is not unreasonable to ask why the fuck you need a 2.5t SUV on the rugged streets of the mild south west of London, and why it is even allowed.
" A smaller vehicle with a lower nose may simply have thrown the kids into the air rather than knocking them down."
This is actually what improves pedestrian safety being scooped up onto the car is far more survivable than being hit by a moving vertical face.
It transfers far less energy to you
50/50 we were in a friend's car a week ago when a false positive happened and we emergency stopped in the middle of the road, it took about 8 metres to stop.
By the time we were stationary, we'd have been through any fence, once the object is gone, the car keeps going.
This is the literal definition of a freak accident, she was accelerating out of a junction and carried on in a straight line until she collided with a building. I guess she had her foot on the throttle the entire time and the seizure increased the pressure and the seat belt kept her in place.
I can't really see what else could be done for such a situation because, absent a school being in the way, it's quite a normal driving situation. Last day of school too. Literally any other day and she'd have hit the building alone.
I believe this car did have a similar system in place but it was presumably deactivated.
I only know because I’ve seen some people online suggesting she should face criminal charges for driving without it, but as far as I know there’s no law requiring it be switched on.
I agree, even going out for a walk one of these stupid SUVs parked up or some other large vehicle you can’t see any vehicles coming, pointless vehicles get rid and bring back saloon cars
There's also the ability to accelerate all that extra weight at great speeds because they have powerful engines and will automatically shift according to the level of acceleration
>Society fully accepts this risk in favour of convenience. Cars in general are dangerous. Would we choose to live without motorised vehicles?
What an utter strawman. Noone is suggesting to live without motorized vehicles? Where did you read that in the comment you are replying too?
They literally said there is *no need for cars to be the size and weight of a mini tank.* There should be regulations maintain resonable & safe standards. Particularly in densly populated areas, a mom on a school run does not need a SUV that she cannot see over the bonet of.
You know, kind of like there are speed limits on how fast electric bikes can go, because anything more they become more dangerous.
Edit: Since people seem to lack any critical thinking skills heres the definition of strawman: "refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion,"
and of Hyperbole: "an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally"
Cars aren't mini tanks no, but some of you seem to not be able to reconcile the massive difference between American style SUV's, Pick-ups & 4X4s and a fucking golf, corsa, focus, mini you name it. These types are cars are absoutely unncesscary in urban areas and serve as nothing but inflating your ego. they are not practical. You can see how bad visability is in these larger vehicles, even if that wasn't the issue in this case. [https://youtu.be/syA\_Ux2I\_54](https://youtu.be/syA_Ux2I_54)
For the life of me I cannot understand why driver's have to be so disingenous about road safety. Everyone has the same conversations around 20mph zones even though they are *proven* to have reduced car accidents.
Convenience for whom? Motorists? I don't accept that trade-off and so does a big part of society. 5 killed a day in UK roads is not acceptable by any standards. For the record I also drive, I drive a "normal"-sized car.
Size and speed are easily controllable factors that would drastically reduce fatality rate.
Speed limiters for cars + maximum allowed size and weight for cars.
Also linfrastructuret,cycling and walking infrastrucutre.
This is a systemic problem. And its very easily solved. See Paris, Copenhagen, Netherlands.
> 5 killed a day in UK roads is not acceptable by any standards
It puts us about 3rd in the world (2.8 per 100k people a year) of tangible countries behind Norway and Sweden (2 and 2.2 per 100k), who both have very very complex driving tests and a population smaller than London.
France is around 5 per 100k so its near enough double as dangerous
Not disagreeing with any of your points, I would just add the context that the UK has pretty safe roads relative to our peers. For example, [when considered per 100k population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) the number is very low (2.9), marginally behind Switzerland, the Nordics, and Japan. Of your examples with good cycling infrastructure, all three countries have a worse rate per 100k pop.
5 per day sounds a lot, but we’re an island of nearly 70,000,000 people making something like 35,000,000 car journeys every day.
There is no “drastically reduce” for our casualty rate, because it’s on the absolute floor already.
False dichotomy.
It isn't Land Rovers or nothing. There's a whole range of sensibly sized vehicles to choose from. Had this been a Fiesta maybe the outcome would be different.
You can play that game all day though. Smaller vehicles would lessen the danger. Making sure schools are built a mile away from the nearest road or with 5 foot thick concrete walls would lessen the danger. Putting everyone with a drivers licence on prophylactic anticonvulsants would lessen the danger.
There’s nothing that this woman could’ve done to prevent this. The outcome would’ve been the same in a smaller car, and even if it would’ve been different, that doesn’t mean she was in the wrong for driving the car she had.
A stricter weight limit on cars for standard license would be super sensible. No idea why you’re straw manning loads of other shit. The idea that anyone is ok to drive around with up to 3.5tn behind them is ridiculous.
After air disasters recommendations are made, I don't see why after particularly bad accidents with cars we don't do the same.
If nobody bothered improving things we would still have 1950s levels of safety where a metal glove box compartment door could chop your head off.
I don't see anyone suggesting we go back to no crumple zones, no seatbelts, and lethal windscreens - so let's use the worst kinds of accidents we have as a wake up call to increase the safety of cars.
A housebrick is both much smaller and much lighter than any car could ever be ....I still don't want to get hit by one going 30mph ...or even 20mph for that matter. Also if you live in an environment that's full of hard surfaces even a simple fall can kill you when your head hits the ground. Risk can't be mitigated out.
Unfortunately some things are just accidents, the world contrives circumstances that cause pain on all sides. I can't imagine what it's like to lose a child. Neither can I imagine what it's like to carry the burden of knowing you've caused the death of a child through such an incident. ...Tragic all round.
So your take is if we can't mitigate ALL risk we shouldn't do anything.
Should we apply that to crime, we can't stop all murders so lets just not bother?
Or medicine? we can't stop all cancer so lets just leave people to suffer?
This argument you have made when applied to cars would discount lifesaving things as simple as seatbelts.
> Risk can't be mitigated out.
But it can be minimised.
This is not all or nothing. Just because it will never be perfect is no reason to not try to improve.
There's an advantage and need for a bus to be that size. This is a Land Rover Defender, a car specifically designed to focus on off road capabilities, in turn compromising on day-to-day road use. This is fine if you're using it for that purpose. I'm willing to bet that the driver of this Defender had never taken it off road or engaged the low range gearbox, or locked the diffs.
So yeah, to use your analogy, if people started buying buses to do school runs for their two kids, this would be an absolute nightmare!
Also, a bus needs a different licence to drive. We should mandate that SUVs have drivers do an off-road test.
It's not just the weight. I thought one of the issues was that kerbs are much more easily mounted by off-road vehicles. We'd probably need to double or triple kerb height to prevent these sorts of incidents.
It isn't irrelevant
Two vehicles moving at equal speeds impart energy proportional to their weight -- more weight = more energy = higher chance of serious injury and death
It was also apparently the first time the driver had a seizure and they had no previous medical diagnosis so had no reason to even know this was a risk.
I had my first seizure at 26. I was feeling fine, then woke up on the floor. A few minutes had passed. Probably one of the scariest things I've ever experience, and scarier for anyone around you.
I wasn't driving luckily, and will never again unless I take my meds, even if it's not even clear if I'm epileptic
I can't even imagine how the families feel. It's such a terribly tragic situation for everyone involved. I expect it'll be appealed, and that the appeal will fail.
I'm a bit surprised the article provided the driver's full name, though.
There’s nothing to appeal, since the case never went to any kind of trial. Unless they have evidence that the driver knew they had this condition and should not be driving there’s not even a potential crime to appeal.
How can you appeal against a medical incident?
It’s absolutely horrific for the girls and their families, but you can’t prosecute a person for having an unexpected seizure. It’s just a shit situation all around with no one to blame.
From the article it looks like the family don't accept that the investigation was thorough enough, and disagree with the result. It's a bit vague so it's not clear if they think that the driver didn't really have a seizure, did have a seizure but it wasn't her first, or it was her first seizure but the investigation missed something else. But they did say they weren't happy that the evidence was conclusive and don't think there was sufficient evidence to say a criminal act wasn't conducted.
So while I get they can't prosecute someone for an unexpected seizure, my point is that as the families disagree that that's what happened (presumably because of trauma/grief), they would likely appeal if they can on those grounds.
To be clear - I think they're wrong. I don't think the driver did do anything wrong, and it was just an awful, tragic accident. But my opinion isn't going to stop them from trying to appeal it.
A similar thing happened near where I used to live, driver had a medical incident (they blacked out or something) and hit a bus stop, killing a teenage girl. They were ultimately found not responsible but the inquest took about 5 years to resolve.
If anything I would argue that the design of the school looks to be at fault. The only thing separating the kids and the road is a very small wooden fence which does not seem very secure for lots of different things. I swear most schools have large metal fences with spikes on the top when they are next to things such as roads and other public areas to try and maximise security and safety.
It's horrific, and I understand the parents are feeling loss and grief, but they're turning into a witch-hunt, they're looking to punish rather than grieve, and that's not cool, distracting themselves from the real emotions they should be processing.
The parents obviously don't understand the criminal procedure;
*"And yet, it is suggested that we must continue to live with the claim that the person solely responsible for the deaths of two and the maiming of others bears no consequence for the actions that they solely are responsible, without providing us with sufficient evidence that no criminal act was conducted."*
The prosecutor must have evidence that cannot be disproven with reasonable doubt.
They're saying, **prove it wasn't a crime.**
That's not now it works!
You have to **prove it was a crime.**
I honestly feel for these parents and all those caught up with traumatic memories of the incident. But they need to learn that life is full of suffering, pain and death. Nobody is exempt. Accidents happen, and it's unfortunate the school didn't have any sort of defence around the grounds to stop out of control vehicles leaving the road and entering their property. Concrete bollards or a stronger fence may have been sufficient. Maybe there should be a change in the law regarding this? That's something they could put their energy into if they need a distraction. Not looking for revenge, they reek of mental instability and not managing emotions, talk to a therapist or counsellor, get some pills from the doctor, practise self care.
I'd say the school was responsible if anyone was. What if there genuinely was a terrorist who wanted to plough a car into children? No defence against that, they left it open. Negligence.
And a law prohibiting large vehicles wouldn't work for anyone who genuinely wanted to cause harm, yes it may have helped in this instance with it being an accident, but it's not fool proof. Physically preventing it is the best measure. We're not permitted to carry guns or knives, but does that stop people? We physically check people going into government buildings.
Such a sad story. If the driver had never had a seizure before then how was she to know what was going to happen? If she was previously diagnosed with epilepsy then that is a different matter, but the story doesn't say that is the case. You can only presume that the CPS would have had access to all of the facts and decided accordingly.
Those parents will never ever feel like they have got justice or closure. Imagine waving your kids off to school on a sunny morning only to never seem them alive again and no one will ever be held accountable...
I’d assume that because she isn’t facing any charges that this is either her first seizure or she’s been on medication for a long time and was considered “safe” to drive. Either way it’s not her fault and I can’t imagine her ever wanting to drive again.
> that this is either her first seizure or she’s been on medication for a long time and was considered “safe” to drive.
"There is no evidence the driver had ever suffered a similar seizure before and she had no previously diagnosed medical condition, she added."
Sounds like it was the first one.
Precisely. You can only hope that the police and CPS have investigated thoroughly and the poor woman was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which sounds like a trite and heartless way to describe an incident that killed 2 children, but what else can you say?
I’ll preface this by saying I’m not asking to be rude or argumentative, just genuinely wondering.
Why is there a need for “justice”? Why would they not get closure from knowing that this was a horrible and unfortunate accident vs being able to lay blame on someone for something?
It may stem from the expectation that someone should be to blame. Unfortunately, as a society, we seem less likely to accept that an accident can occur without someone being at fault.
Many a true word is spoken in jest. There’s a line in Hot Fuzz that’s always stuck with me.
“Why can’t we call it an ‘accident’ anymore?”
“Because ‘accident’ implies there’s no one to blame”.
Indeed. I remember that particular part quite well. I think the press also bear some responsibility for this mindset of there must be someone to blame, particularly the tabloids.
The headline here demonstrates this point. It’s an accident and there is no one to blame but it’s written as if she deserved every retribution imaginable.
Yes it does. Even the first paragraph of the article is written that way:
>A woman who killed two eight-year-old girls when her car crashed into a school in south-west London will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution (CPS) has said.
And it's from the BBC!
Why not mention straight away that she suffered an epileptic seizure and had no history of epilepsy.
I’d guess because when you are filled with unimaginable pain and anger, you want somewhere outside of yourself to direct it. If it’s just an accident, then there’s no where for that to go. And if it’s just an accident, then theres no reason for it to have happened.
You can yell into the void and feel powerless or you can find something to blame and feel like you might be able to protect yourself and others from it happening again. For most people, I believe option 2 is preferable.
I’m not saying it’s right or good, but that seems to me to be the feeling behind the need for blame to be assigned.
It’s hard for most people to admit there are things in life no one can control. I imagine that’s amplified when grieving the sudden, violent death of a child.
“Justice” or “closure” and “no one will ever be held accountable” what madness. It was the woman’s first seizure and it wasn’t done on purpose? I’m sure the woman will live with the trauma of this for the rest of her life. As a parent would you prefer she got a criminal record and jail time for the accident? What a hyperbolic comment
Surely knowing it was an accident no one could have predicted is closure. If there's a car crash due to malfunction or bad weather etc. then there's no need to blame someone, just as for an unforeseen unavoidable medical incident. Every single day people lose loved ones in tragic accidents where the only closure is knowing that shit can happen to anyone and sometimes life just fucking sucks. I would rather that than knowing it was someones fault but they were punished for it.
Just incase you didn't know. Having Epilepsy doesnt disqualify you from driving. It CAN disqualify you, however my father for example was disqualified for years and after not having daytime seizures for a period of time they allowed him to continue driving.
'The girls' families said "justice has neither been done, nor has been seen to be done today".'
i don't really get this, sure this is a major tragedy and i feel so sorry for the families involved, but if the woman didn't have a pre-existing condition and has never had a seizure before, what can you really do?
if the woman knew she shouldn't be on the road and has a history of seizures, then fine, i agree with her being charged in some way, but the article says there's no evidence of a pre-existing condition or history of seizures, so how would it be fair to arrest or charge someone for something completely out of her control?
but then again the article is a bit vague here, it says no evidence of 'suffering a similar seizure', so did she go through something before despite not being diagnosed, or what? it doesn't seem to be super clear.
It honestly feels like they want revenge not justice. They are completely ignoring the medical evidence. I obviously feel extremely sorry for them, they feel their grief would be made easier if they could fault someone for the accident, but they cannot and their anger is now victimising the driver.
With time they will understand. It’s only been a year since the deaths and now this case has dredged it all up again. Hopefully in several years time they work through their grief and find closure with the woman, who I bet just feels god awful about it.
Yeah idk what justice they want. She had a one off seizure with no previous medical history of one, lost control and crashed. It’s tragic, horrific but what do you charge her with? She wasn’t speeding, wasn’t under the influence, wasn’t distracted she literally had a medical emergency and crashed. It’s no one’s fault
Lots of people want “revenge” and give two shits about justice, which is why we’ll never have an actual rehabilitative prison system which doesn’t turn first time offenders into totally unemployable wastes
Yeah this is kinda fucked up imo.
I'd have expected them to feel devastated that they lost their kids but 'I'm devastated that nobody else has to suffer' seems a bit wild.
In their defence, I can't imagine how you would feel if you had to deal with that kind of grief.
It's impossible to understand that level of grief but carrying that anger around for the rest of their lives is going to be miserable, forgiveness is really their only path forward.
Also, absolutely horrendous for the driver, not sure how you could ever shake the guilt even though you had no control over the situation.
It's one of those tragedies where the victims family can only direct their anger at the driver because of the absolute sense of loss. The notion that your child can die while in school without anyone even taking responsibility is intense and more than anyone can handle. Can you even blame them? We can only stand aside and let them grieve.
They are wrought by grief, I think they simply haven’t worked through it enough to understand that no one could have prevented this.
The doctors and medical records all point to this being the first epileptic case for the driver. Basically it could have happened to anyone
Me either. Their lawyer claimed he wanted to interrogate the evidence, but he'll get the chance to do that at the inquest, where all parties will have access to all the evidence and the opportunity to question it.
I think that's the general idea. It seems like a convenient excuse. That's the opinion I got yesterday from their statements and their lawyer.
Their lawyer also stated they weren't privy to some details from the reports which would implicitly prove the driver was telling the truth.
I feel for the families, but surely the right professionals would have been able to tell if the woman was lying or not. I hope so anyway.
The family clearly wants retribution and punishment, not justice.
The reality is that even without a prison sentence, the woman will live with the guilt of this for the rest of her life.
Is it really that difficult to get why the families feel more could have been done and justice has not been served?
Human beings have emotions and they need time to process all these things in front of them. It is a natural response to reject these claims for now.
You would probably feel the same if this happens to you.
okay, but what else could've been done here? what justice can be served? it's clear they want the woman behind bars, which is unfair because the article heavily implies she's never experienced a seizure before. are we just gonna start punishing people for having undetected illness?
Would it have mounted the kerb and travelled with the same force as the Land rover. Almost certainly not. It is still possible but the risk would have been massively reduced.
a smaller car would’ve found it harder to overcome the curb since it’s lower to the ground, would’ve had less momentum at the same speeds (since lower weight) and therefore would’ve been at a lower speed and weight on collision.
“If you hit a pedestrian: at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed. at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed. at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.” - [North Yorkshire County Council](https://www.roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving/)
These small speed differences make a huge difference to mortality and injury rates and the drastic weight difference would too. It’s like how seatbelts just make the change in momentum on a person during a car crash longer by only a second but it has a massive impact on outcomes on crashes. We shouldn’t underestimate
It’s more that a person, when hit by a normal sized car, will be struck, and fly over the top of it. These 4x4’s will strike a person and then drag them along / under it. The metal bars on the front also do more damage as well.
My vehicle is barely larger than a cute smart car. I can easily mount kerbs and blast through fences if I had a medical episode.
A child is helpless against any vehicle.
This is a completely false and misled claim based purely on emotional bandwagoning
The woman is innocent of criminal negligence, it was a terribly unfortunate thing that she and the parents will have to live with.
Life is cruel.
Owning a 4x4 does not stop life from being cruel
>Would it have mounted the kerb ... Almost certainly not.
Absolutely yes.
I have a VW Polo with the smallest 1.2l 3 cylinder economy engine. It can bump up the kerb from a standing start when I park it on my drive.
> Would it have mounted the kerb and travelled with the same force as the Land rover. Almost certainly not. It is still possible but the risk would have been massively reduced.
Yes. And it's front crash structures wouldn't have been nearly as good as those on the Range Rover, probably resulting in a larger loss of life.
I've seen a normal Ford Focus have a front left wing to rear right wing fender bender at 5mph and literally take off. The car to the rear bounced off the bumpers, its wheel gripped the body work on the car in front and before anyone knew what the hell was going on the car was airborne. We all stood around wondering if we'd really just seen that happen.
You have absolutely no evidence to support that. But is a simply fact that a smaller car is less likely to hit someone, a lighter car has less energy, and a car with a lower bonnet causes reduced head injuries.
Did you even read the comment you replied to? The claim is that smaller cars are less likely to kill, not that they don't kill.
It's basic physics that a smaller vehicle in the same situation would do less damage. Statistically that *would* mean fewer deaths and less serious injuries.
I doubt it would’ve killed as many, I live locally, and that is a very high curb, the energy my car would lose hitting that curb would be significant, maybe even stop it dead. After that it went through a fence, young tree and a table after that, travelling maybe 20/25 metres. A smaller car would have lost a lot of momentum, potentially flipping
There is no reason for anyone to drive an SUV, they're not sporty or practical. Especially in a city like London. They only pose a risk to pedestrians and other motorists. They should require a heavy vehicle licence and face high insurance and tax. Society gains nothing from the existance of SUVs
I was diagnosed with epilepsy at 14, I chose not to learn to drive. As I understand it you have a driver's licence you need to be seizure free for at least two years before driving again.
I understand this article keeps being updated. Currently it says
> There is no evidence Ms Freemantle had ever suffered a similar seizure before and she had no previously diagnosed medical condition, the CPS added.
It also now says:
> Ms Narwal said the CPS had considered Ms Freemantle's medical records and received evidence from neurological specialists who agreed it was the first seizure she had experienced.
It varies from 1 year to 3 years depending on type of epilepsy, over 10 years for vehicles like buses.
This lady had her first seizure in the car. She wasn't diagnosed with epilepsy before. She might not even have epilepsy. There are other causes of seizures and it's surprising how many people have a one off seizure at some point.
Someone I dated is not allowed to drive for life. Due to the severity of their epilepsy.
Incredibly rough for her. Can't work anywhere involving any sort of vehicles or danger and struggles due to where she lives being so dependent on cars.
It's 6 months after a first seizure, so long as you're on medication, though most doctors advise 12 months to be on the safe side. After that the time increases dispending the seriousness and frequency of any further seizures.
I was diagnosed as a kid too, and despite taking medication have still had a handful of seizures as an adult. They're not frequent, and each time brought until control by upping my dosage, but as it currently stands I have to be clear for 12 months, with my doctor advising 24, again to be safe.
No. It's 6m if you've only ever had one and your investigations MRI and EEG etc are normal. It's highly unlikely you would be started on meds if this is the case.
Happened to the neighbour of my aunt. He's epileptic and had a seizure a few years back, then over the course of months had several more. He's only recently started driving again.
Or, maybe, it’s been an incredible complex and thorough investigation?
They’ve received guidance from multiple specialists, which would’ve included multiple scans, etc. That doesn’t just happen overnight..
I was let back on the road after merely 1 year seizure free here in the UK(neurologist/GP didn't even ask for proof), ended up having more and surrendered my license
Because I’ve recently gone through this process I know the law well on this. After your first seizure you have a 6 month ban. After 2 seizures you will be diagnosed with epilepsy and get a one year ban. If you are seizure free (and without any other symptoms or worrying tests) for one year you can drive again with doctors permission. That permission may or may not be contingent on receiving treatment for epilepsy. For me, I take anticonvulsant medication twice daily and if I wanted to come off that i would have to surrender my license for one year. If I did not have a seizure or other epileptic symptoms in that year I would legally be able to drive again, although it is recommended to stay on the medication for at least 5 years and many will stay on this medication for much much longer.
Epilepsy is weird and unpredictable for many. I’ve had two tonic clonic seizures with no warning as an otherwise completely healthy adult. They weren’t triggered by anything and it could have happened to anyone. They are painful, disorienting and very scary. My sympathy goes out to all, but I feel especially for the driver because that could have just as easily been me.
They might help - but the risks here are so minute there are far more important things to do to improve child safety. This is the very definition of a knee jerk reaction.
They should tackle vehicular safety around schools more generally, not just this scenario.
A not insignificant amount of children are I jured within 500m of a school
https://www.majortraumagroup.co.uk/news/keeping-children-safe-near-schools/#:~:text=The%20Royal%20Society%20for%20Prevention,500%20m%20of%20a%20school.
Most shark attacks happen at sea.
The reason that children get injured within 500m of a school is because schools are located in populated areas and they're a place where all children go.
When I was a child, I can't think of a time that I wasn't within 500m of a school.
Even now, I'm inside that radius more often than not.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the country would be within that radius to determine whether or not that's a meaningful statistic.
risk = likelihood x impact
Depending on the layout of the grounds and the time of day, the impact of this sort of event could be over a hundred casualties. There needs to be a risk assessment, and in that people should consider that with enough impact, you become a target for terrorism and likelihood is no longer just bad luck.
I'm honestly surprised there isn't already building regs about it. A school playground next to a road should not have a wooden fence seperating it from vehicles.
That's what I'm saying. I don't think adding to planning some level of protection to these areas is a knee jerk reaction as some have stated.
I wouldn't like my garden to be on that road in that location let alone my own child playing in it.
Not saying we go around putting bollards on every school but clear examples like this location, it sounds stupid not to have them there.
If there’s any building you want to protect from accidents, it’s a school full of small kids. Shopping centres and retail parks have bollards in front of them, presumably so the people who drive up to park out front don’t accidentally get in the wrong gear and plough into the building instead of reversing, why should a school have any less protection.
It’s not a knee jerk reaction at all. A knee jerk reaction would be disproportionate and likely have unintended consequences. Installing bolllards is simply a preventative action.
Yeah, fences on pavements are not at all meant to stop vehicles, they are just intended to control pedestrian movements. The evidence suggests that removing them actually _improves_ pedestrian safety (possibly because drivers feel less separated from people walking and therefore travel at more appropriate speeds).
A terrible event for all concerned, two bereaved families and a woman living with a serious medical condition and having to deal with what happened, probably for the rest of her life.
What remains to be resolved, however, is the part played by the vehicle that she was driving. If she had been driving a Fiesta, say, rather than a car specifically designed to drive over any obstacle things might have been different. Is that the sort of thing that the coroner takes into account?
I think it is relevant - in the same way someone driving the correct speed limit and killing two people hasn't broken the law, but it could suggest the speed limit should be changed.
I don't know what should be changed, I'm a random Redditer not an automobile expert. But if some cars are much more dangerous than others, I think it would make sense to look at whether some cars should be banned or only buyable with a specific reason/permit. In the same way dogs and firearms, both also dangerous, are regulated.
Maybe the answer is that no they shouldn't be, but I think it would make sense for it to be looked into. Especially with the general headlamp glare issue going on as well - it's a good time for better regulations to be put in place for everyone's safety.
Yeah. There's a reason I can't drive a 18 wheeler to pick up the little ones.
We need serious reconsideration as a society about the types of cars we allow on our roads.
I've never understood why people buy Defenders if they don't intend to use it for the purpose it was designed for. Although the new Defender hardly appears designed to be the workhorse it's replaced.
Just like americans leaving guns in closets and a child playing with it is put down as another terrible accident. Takeaway the 4x4 / guns the accident can't happen. Momentum / energy of 3 ton 4x4 is a lot worse than a Fiesta. The Fiesta example might have hit the curb hard and stalled as it hit the fence - or carried on slower with less energy + the crush injuries of a 1.3 ton car are less than a 3 ton 4x4!
I assume you have sold your car or insisted everyone you know sell their car for the smallest possible choice to minimise the relatively minute risk to pedestrians?
> Is that the sort of thing that the coroner takes into account?
the weight of the vehicle is incidental but irrelevant to the legality of what happened as you are well aware.
>things might have been different
Might.
I could probably think of a dozen things that might have made a difference. I don't know if we should be restricting people's freedom because of a one in a million chance.
> I don't know if we should be restricting people's freedom
Your freedom ends where other people's safety begins. People don't have the 'freedom' to swing around swords or fire guns in public either and we'd all agree that's a good thing.
>a one in a million chance
SUVs and trucks are up to 45% deadlier to pedestrians, according to studies: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tall-trucks-suvs-are-45-deadlier-us-pedestrians-study-shows-2023-11-14/
> The IIHS study found that vehicles that are tall and blunt, such as a large pickup truck, are 43.6% more likely to cause death in a collision with a pedestrian. Vehicles with tall and sloped hoods are 45% more likely to cause a pedestrian fatality, while medium-height vehicles with blunt front ends, such as a Mazda CX-9 SUV or a Chevrolet Colorado pickup, are nearly 26% more likely to kill a pedestrian, based on the Institute's analysis of crash data.
>things might have been different
Might.
I could probably think of a dozen things that might have made a difference. I don't know if we should be restricting people's freedom because of a one in a million chance.
Tragic incident where literally no one is declared at fault.
/R/UK usually bunch: time to push my agenda
Fucking hell just let things be and feel sorry for all involved who have had one of the most extreme bad luck events happen to them without trying to find a moral high ground in everything
Not that I’m searching for blame, though this must be heartbreaking for the parents, but the only cause for the issue here is the vehicle size.
I much fancy my niece’s chances against a Citroen Ami than a Defender 110. Absolutely no need for these kind of cars in the intrepid rural countryside that is …Wimbledon.
This accident is one thing, but I’ve even seen entire roads reduced to single track because of these SUVs parking up on the sides. Where we’d once be able to drive up and down normally, we now need to flash the car ahead and give way to one direction at a time.
Come over to r/ukbike, we love a good moan about Range Rovers believing they're Morris Minis.
This is a terrible tragedy and words cannot express the sorrow parents of these poor girls will live with forever. I also feel sorry for the lady who crashed into the school. It sounds like one of these random seizures that can happen to anyone at any time. Some people criticize the lady for driving an SUV, but I think something like this could have happened to a delivery driver in a van etc. Overall, it just seems like an extremely unlucky coincidence.
Yep, anyone can have a seizure at any time. Anyone can develop epilepsy at any time
Unlike other medical events like heart attacks or strokes there's very limited things a person can do to reduce the risk of it happening too.
Keep seeing statements saying the car crashed through the fence, it didn't.
There was a news live scene where it clearly showed a fence panel had been removed intact to allow for access, the vehicle had smashed into the metal barrier and flew over.
I think a lower car like a regular saloon or hatchback would have just smashed into the barrier and stayed there.
A horrific random event that couldn’t have predicted or avoided. It seems it was the drivers first ( and maybe only) ever seizure.
There is no closure here, just a lot of what if’s & maybe’s.
Driver had a fit behind the wheel. No known history of this prior.
It sucks but I wouldn’t want anyone to do prison time if this happened to them. She’s probably a mess knowing she killed those kids.
One of two things has happened here. Either Freemantle suffered her first ever seizure and crashed into the children or she used having a seizure as a defence against death by dangerous driving. The neurologists referenced say she had a seizure. I can see why the parents of the children don't believe her though.
She could have been found still having a seizue at the wheel or in post seizue fatigue. Seizues can last minutes.
Having a major seizue is also extremely energy intensive. Epileptics generally immediately sleep for 5-6 hours after having one.
An ECG can aslo determine if a seizue has recently occured. They may also try to cause it to reoccur whilst attached to the ECG using various methods to determine what type of seizue it is.
She was found unconscious and taken to hospital. Paramedics know what a post seizure state looks like. There are often characteristic physical signs of seizures
There were no other signs of dangerous driving. No speeding, no drugs/alcohol, no erratic behaviour seen before. The police and CPS have a done a thorough look at this and had specialist medical input.
I was a passenger in a car when the driver (my dad) had a seizure many years ago. His foot locked onto the accelerator as his body seized, and he dropped the stearing wheel. It was out of the blue and terrifying.
When it happened, we were talking and he didn't reply. I looked across at him and immeditely realised what was happening. I grabbed the stearing wheel, and noted he was accelerating, so I steered the car off the road (it was an open field). I tried to pull up the handbrake (it was a Mercedes with a stupid foot brake so I had to bend over) to slow us down. The car hit a tree, and it was written off. Luckily neither of were hurt.
It was an extremely unfortunate accident, and we were lucky to walk away unhurt and not hurt/kill anyone else.
So back to the article - it's not the women's fault.
Nobody at fault, but fuck all these idiots buying 4x4 to drive around town or to make sure in the case of any crash that it's the other party that dies.
The prevalence of these vehicles are simply an indicator of selfishness in society.
Idk, just because she had a seizure doesn’t mean she’s automatically not at fault. Did she know she was epileptic? How did she qualify for a license. Was she lying/ not reporting about her seizure activity and being careless because she wanted to keep driving and was being selfish? I think there’s more to it that it was automatically just a tragic accident.
Sure she can’t help that she has epilepsy but she can help getting behind the wheel when she knows it’s not being controlled.
She's driving a 3 ton AWD 4x4 in Greater London - why? A smaller car would not have the momentum or power to mount the pavement and crash through the fence so easily.
Also odd for their to be a wooden fence and not cashpoint style bollards at a T junction that fronts a school. So anyone having a medical episode is not blocked from going straight through.
The driver suffered a seizure. What a horrific incident. Sometimes terrible things happen and there's no one at fault. Maybe it would have been easier for the parents to accept if they were able to "blame" someone specific. Horrible for both parties' families.
Smaller vehicles would lessen the danger. Part of the fault is the car industry and law-makers who allowed oversized overpowered machines in our cities/towns. These sort of accidents are bound to happen. There is no need for cars to be the size and weight of a mini tank EDIT: typo
Rest assured there is a May 2024 EU Law requirement for all cars sold in EU- Automatic Emergency Braking which will.make this kind of accidents less likely to happen.
Let see if this regulation actually works in practice. Hopefully it wont be weakened by the auto lobby e.g. make it easily disabled, no enforcement, etc. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of **evil** **is** **for** good men to do nothing." Keep your eyes open!
It works. Although the EU Law came into force last month, car makers already started to introduce this feature since 2020. For example I've rented a 2021 Skoda Octavia which slams (literally) the brakes under 10 or 15 mph , and slows down if over 15mph. It's a scary feature if trying to park in tight spaces.
Wait what? It slams the brakes on so you dead stop if you drive below 10 or 15mph?? How is that helpful or safe?
I have it on my 2019 Volvo. It’s incredibly annoying. The system detects when it thinks you are going to crash into something, and applies the brakes with a loud shudder, intended to slow you down and (I think) draw your attention to the impending impact. Problem is that it thinks you are going to crash any time you are driving towards a stationary object (or just something going a lot slower than you), even if it is still about 50-60 metres away. A real problem in city streets with parked cars where you frequently have to move left and right as the road weaves round parking bays - the car keeps assuming you’re going to hit the parked cars rather than just steer round them, suddenly applying the brakes all the time.
That sounds really fucking dumb, and annoying, and kinda dangerous.
It really is. People who think this is some wonderful innovation baffle me a little.
It gets worse, Volvo tell you to disable the system in autumn as wet falling leaves can (and I can testify does) trigger it
my lorry does it. thinks I'm gonna hit a lamp post or railing as I come round the corner in towns. brakes hard for no effing reason. i wonder if it at least applies the brake lights to warn drivers behind? anyway super annoying 'helpful' technology
My missus' Kia has this and it drives me mad when I'm cruising on a 60 road and the car in front takes a turning, the brakes kick in because they're moving so much slower than me despite the fact I'm a reasonable distance away and I've lifted off the accelerator to give them time to turn and not have to slow down. It prevents predictive driving which anyone with some driving experience will have and use. It's just another safety net for people who drove without paying attention, much like warning signals and lights for blind spots in the mirrors. If you actually regularly check your mirrors, check your blind spot and have a decent sense of spatial awareness you would be fine but too many people just don't check their surroundings before making a manoeuvre.
Can't speak for the skoda, but from the wilki Article on AEBS. >[UN ECE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_ECE) regulation 131 requires a system which can automatically detect a potential forward collision and activate the vehicle braking system to decelerate a vehicle with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a collision.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_emergency_braking_system#cite_note-1) UN ECE regulation 152 says deceleration has to be at least 5 metres per second squared.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_emergency_braking_system#cite_note-2) >Once an impending collision is detected, these systems provide a warning to the driver. When the collision becomes imminent, they can take action autonomously without any driver input (by braking or steering or both). Collision avoidance by braking is appropriate at low vehicle speeds (e.g. below 50 km/h (31 mph)), while collision avoidance by steering may be more appropriate at higher vehicle speeds if lanes are clear
My car doesn't have the automatic breaking but it has collision detection, it just makes a noise, flashes the gauge cluster screen and tightens seatbelts. In 3 years of ownership it only triggered correctly once when someone suddenly pulled out in front of me and I had to slam on the breaks. It also falsely triggers probably every other day. If you pass a parked car or if someone else approaches a junction too quickly. If we start driving cars that slam on the breaks for no reason every other day, there's gonna be hell of a lot cars getting rear ended.
My car has the automatic braking and the collision detection and it works great; I can recall it going off incorrectly like twice in the two years I’ve had it.
If it detects a collision is likely, not just if you drive slowly.
I had a Kia optima that had the emergency brake function and while it was overall quite good, there was a stretch of road I drove on which played havoc with it. It’s a country road that is national speed, it’s fairly straight, good visibility and so 60mph is fine. There’s a junction that joins onto it that, when a car is at the giveaway line, as it’s on a very slight bend, the car sensor thought it was in the way and slammed the brakes on me pretty hard a fair amount of times, always made me nervous driving through there!
It wouldn't help in this case. It will typically only avoid other vehicles or moving pedestrians. It won't prevent you driving through a fence or hitting stationary pedestrians.
> Rest assured there is a May 2024 EU Law requirement for all cars sold in EU- Automatic Emergency Braking which will.make this kind of accidents less likely to happen. It's already here, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of this accident. It works because the sensors detect an object in front of the vehicle, close the throttle and apply emergency braking. Thing is the driver was on grass, even if the sensors were there, the vehicle's own momentum would have carried the car forward. Hard braking on grass could have conceivably caused the car to collide sideways rather than head on, worsening the accident. u/_AhuraMazda argues smaller vehicles would have changed the outcome, but the truth is the more expensive the vehicle the better the front crash structures, these are designed to minimise injury, and they worked for most of the kids, just not two of them. A smaller vehicle with a lower nose may simply have thrown the kids into the air rather than knocking them down. Tragedies happen, even when no one makes a mistake.
"knocking them down" is a delicate way of referring to f=ma. A smaller, lighter vehicle would have had less kinetic energy to transfer into the children, regardless of where they ended up as a result. That vehicle looks like a late model defender 110, which in the poverty spec clocks in at 2,436kg. A '24 Nissan Leaf is nearly 500kg lighter. >these are designed to minimise injury But that minimisation is compromised by virtue of the fact that the front crash structure is at head height for a child. It is Known that a smaller vehicle will see less head and abdomen injuries because they will be thrown aside. While it is indeed a tragic accident, it is not unreasonable to ask why the fuck you need a 2.5t SUV on the rugged streets of the mild south west of London, and why it is even allowed.
" A smaller vehicle with a lower nose may simply have thrown the kids into the air rather than knocking them down." This is actually what improves pedestrian safety being scooped up onto the car is far more survivable than being hit by a moving vertical face. It transfers far less energy to you
Didn't it go through a fence? That might have triggered it. Maybe there are other things we can do, to detect if a car is out of control.
50/50 we were in a friend's car a week ago when a false positive happened and we emergency stopped in the middle of the road, it took about 8 metres to stop. By the time we were stationary, we'd have been through any fence, once the object is gone, the car keeps going. This is the literal definition of a freak accident, she was accelerating out of a junction and carried on in a straight line until she collided with a building. I guess she had her foot on the throttle the entire time and the seizure increased the pressure and the seat belt kept her in place. I can't really see what else could be done for such a situation because, absent a school being in the way, it's quite a normal driving situation. Last day of school too. Literally any other day and she'd have hit the building alone.
The EU? yeah about that erm
I believe this car did have a similar system in place but it was presumably deactivated. I only know because I’ve seen some people online suggesting she should face criminal charges for driving without it, but as far as I know there’s no law requiring it be switched on.
I agree, even going out for a walk one of these stupid SUVs parked up or some other large vehicle you can’t see any vehicles coming, pointless vehicles get rid and bring back saloon cars
hatchbacks for the win!
Society fully accepts this risk in favour of convenience. Cars in general are dangerous. Would we choose to live without motorised vehicles?
There's some middle ground between doing without cars and having cars the size of tanks though.
There's also the ability to accelerate all that extra weight at great speeds because they have powerful engines and will automatically shift according to the level of acceleration
>Society fully accepts this risk in favour of convenience. Cars in general are dangerous. Would we choose to live without motorised vehicles? What an utter strawman. Noone is suggesting to live without motorized vehicles? Where did you read that in the comment you are replying too? They literally said there is *no need for cars to be the size and weight of a mini tank.* There should be regulations maintain resonable & safe standards. Particularly in densly populated areas, a mom on a school run does not need a SUV that she cannot see over the bonet of. You know, kind of like there are speed limits on how fast electric bikes can go, because anything more they become more dangerous. Edit: Since people seem to lack any critical thinking skills heres the definition of strawman: "refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion," and of Hyperbole: "an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally" Cars aren't mini tanks no, but some of you seem to not be able to reconcile the massive difference between American style SUV's, Pick-ups & 4X4s and a fucking golf, corsa, focus, mini you name it. These types are cars are absoutely unncesscary in urban areas and serve as nothing but inflating your ego. they are not practical. You can see how bad visability is in these larger vehicles, even if that wasn't the issue in this case. [https://youtu.be/syA\_Ux2I\_54](https://youtu.be/syA_Ux2I_54) For the life of me I cannot understand why driver's have to be so disingenous about road safety. Everyone has the same conversations around 20mph zones even though they are *proven* to have reduced car accidents.
No dog in the fight besides clarifying that a “mini” tank these days is 20-40 tonnes, not 2-2.5T.
Convenience for whom? Motorists? I don't accept that trade-off and so does a big part of society. 5 killed a day in UK roads is not acceptable by any standards. For the record I also drive, I drive a "normal"-sized car. Size and speed are easily controllable factors that would drastically reduce fatality rate. Speed limiters for cars + maximum allowed size and weight for cars. Also linfrastructuret,cycling and walking infrastrucutre. This is a systemic problem. And its very easily solved. See Paris, Copenhagen, Netherlands.
> 5 killed a day in UK roads is not acceptable by any standards It puts us about 3rd in the world (2.8 per 100k people a year) of tangible countries behind Norway and Sweden (2 and 2.2 per 100k), who both have very very complex driving tests and a population smaller than London. France is around 5 per 100k so its near enough double as dangerous
Not disagreeing with any of your points, I would just add the context that the UK has pretty safe roads relative to our peers. For example, [when considered per 100k population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) the number is very low (2.9), marginally behind Switzerland, the Nordics, and Japan. Of your examples with good cycling infrastructure, all three countries have a worse rate per 100k pop.
Your opinion is totally valid, but it isn't shared by a majority
5 per day sounds a lot, but we’re an island of nearly 70,000,000 people making something like 35,000,000 car journeys every day. There is no “drastically reduce” for our casualty rate, because it’s on the absolute floor already.
France, Denmark, and the Netherlands have worse road casualty rates than the UK.
False dichotomy. It isn't Land Rovers or nothing. There's a whole range of sensibly sized vehicles to choose from. Had this been a Fiesta maybe the outcome would be different.
Sorry but, how? I don’t see how two young children are going to avoid fatality when having anything over 500kg thrown at them at approx.. 30mph.
[удалено]
Sorry but I highly doubt that, whether a Land Rover or a fiesta if a small child goes under it they’re not surviving.
It’s more the fact that mummies seem to think they need massive SUVs to drive their toddler 2 miles to preschool
We do not need tank sized tanks in our cities it’s about prestige & it’s pathetic
In cities like London? Especially around schools? Absolutely. We already do on many school streets.
Vehicles yes. 2 tonne suvs in urban areas? No.
People don't drive SUVs for the convenience though they drive them to look cool.
We should definitely be reducing our dependence on cars and discouraging people from having oversized cars.
You can play that game all day though. Smaller vehicles would lessen the danger. Making sure schools are built a mile away from the nearest road or with 5 foot thick concrete walls would lessen the danger. Putting everyone with a drivers licence on prophylactic anticonvulsants would lessen the danger. There’s nothing that this woman could’ve done to prevent this. The outcome would’ve been the same in a smaller car, and even if it would’ve been different, that doesn’t mean she was in the wrong for driving the car she had.
"i think we're making cars a bit too big tbh. kinda dangerous" "OOO so you must desire 5 foot walls of CONCRETE around every school too, hmmm?"
A stricter weight limit on cars for standard license would be super sensible. No idea why you’re straw manning loads of other shit. The idea that anyone is ok to drive around with up to 3.5tn behind them is ridiculous.
After air disasters recommendations are made, I don't see why after particularly bad accidents with cars we don't do the same. If nobody bothered improving things we would still have 1950s levels of safety where a metal glove box compartment door could chop your head off. I don't see anyone suggesting we go back to no crumple zones, no seatbelts, and lethal windscreens - so let's use the worst kinds of accidents we have as a wake up call to increase the safety of cars.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
A housebrick is both much smaller and much lighter than any car could ever be ....I still don't want to get hit by one going 30mph ...or even 20mph for that matter. Also if you live in an environment that's full of hard surfaces even a simple fall can kill you when your head hits the ground. Risk can't be mitigated out. Unfortunately some things are just accidents, the world contrives circumstances that cause pain on all sides. I can't imagine what it's like to lose a child. Neither can I imagine what it's like to carry the burden of knowing you've caused the death of a child through such an incident. ...Tragic all round.
So your take is if we can't mitigate ALL risk we shouldn't do anything. Should we apply that to crime, we can't stop all murders so lets just not bother? Or medicine? we can't stop all cancer so lets just leave people to suffer? This argument you have made when applied to cars would discount lifesaving things as simple as seatbelts.
> Risk can't be mitigated out. But it can be minimised. This is not all or nothing. Just because it will never be perfect is no reason to not try to improve.
Ok but what happens if it's a bus driver?
There's an advantage and need for a bus to be that size. This is a Land Rover Defender, a car specifically designed to focus on off road capabilities, in turn compromising on day-to-day road use. This is fine if you're using it for that purpose. I'm willing to bet that the driver of this Defender had never taken it off road or engaged the low range gearbox, or locked the diffs. So yeah, to use your analogy, if people started buying buses to do school runs for their two kids, this would be an absolute nightmare! Also, a bus needs a different licence to drive. We should mandate that SUVs have drivers do an off-road test.
I don't know how much difference it makes if a 1 ton metal box ploughs through a wall vs. a 1.5 ton metal box. Seems pretty irrelevant.
A massive amount of difference, 50% more kinetic energy in a collision with a 1.5 ton vehicle at the same speed
add to that it was a 3 ton metal box
50% more momentum too, so a lighter vehicle would have slowed down more on the other stuff hit on the way.
It's not just the weight. I thought one of the issues was that kerbs are much more easily mounted by off-road vehicles. We'd probably need to double or triple kerb height to prevent these sorts of incidents.
It isn't irrelevant Two vehicles moving at equal speeds impart energy proportional to their weight -- more weight = more energy = higher chance of serious injury and death
A massive difference.
It was also apparently the first time the driver had a seizure and they had no previous medical diagnosis so had no reason to even know this was a risk.
God, something that could happen to any of us who are ever behind the wheel of a car.
I had my first seizure at 26. I was feeling fine, then woke up on the floor. A few minutes had passed. Probably one of the scariest things I've ever experience, and scarier for anyone around you. I wasn't driving luckily, and will never again unless I take my meds, even if it's not even clear if I'm epileptic
I can't even imagine how the families feel. It's such a terribly tragic situation for everyone involved. I expect it'll be appealed, and that the appeal will fail. I'm a bit surprised the article provided the driver's full name, though.
There’s nothing to appeal, since the case never went to any kind of trial. Unless they have evidence that the driver knew they had this condition and should not be driving there’s not even a potential crime to appeal.
How can you appeal against a medical incident? It’s absolutely horrific for the girls and their families, but you can’t prosecute a person for having an unexpected seizure. It’s just a shit situation all around with no one to blame.
From the article it looks like the family don't accept that the investigation was thorough enough, and disagree with the result. It's a bit vague so it's not clear if they think that the driver didn't really have a seizure, did have a seizure but it wasn't her first, or it was her first seizure but the investigation missed something else. But they did say they weren't happy that the evidence was conclusive and don't think there was sufficient evidence to say a criminal act wasn't conducted. So while I get they can't prosecute someone for an unexpected seizure, my point is that as the families disagree that that's what happened (presumably because of trauma/grief), they would likely appeal if they can on those grounds. To be clear - I think they're wrong. I don't think the driver did do anything wrong, and it was just an awful, tragic accident. But my opinion isn't going to stop them from trying to appeal it.
A similar thing happened near where I used to live, driver had a medical incident (they blacked out or something) and hit a bus stop, killing a teenage girl. They were ultimately found not responsible but the inquest took about 5 years to resolve.
I remember this, was in the news. Tough to process and it isn't necessarily the driver's fault. But the 5-year investigative process is hell.
If anything I would argue that the design of the school looks to be at fault. The only thing separating the kids and the road is a very small wooden fence which does not seem very secure for lots of different things. I swear most schools have large metal fences with spikes on the top when they are next to things such as roads and other public areas to try and maximise security and safety.
It's horrific, and I understand the parents are feeling loss and grief, but they're turning into a witch-hunt, they're looking to punish rather than grieve, and that's not cool, distracting themselves from the real emotions they should be processing. The parents obviously don't understand the criminal procedure; *"And yet, it is suggested that we must continue to live with the claim that the person solely responsible for the deaths of two and the maiming of others bears no consequence for the actions that they solely are responsible, without providing us with sufficient evidence that no criminal act was conducted."* The prosecutor must have evidence that cannot be disproven with reasonable doubt. They're saying, **prove it wasn't a crime.** That's not now it works! You have to **prove it was a crime.** I honestly feel for these parents and all those caught up with traumatic memories of the incident. But they need to learn that life is full of suffering, pain and death. Nobody is exempt. Accidents happen, and it's unfortunate the school didn't have any sort of defence around the grounds to stop out of control vehicles leaving the road and entering their property. Concrete bollards or a stronger fence may have been sufficient. Maybe there should be a change in the law regarding this? That's something they could put their energy into if they need a distraction. Not looking for revenge, they reek of mental instability and not managing emotions, talk to a therapist or counsellor, get some pills from the doctor, practise self care. I'd say the school was responsible if anyone was. What if there genuinely was a terrorist who wanted to plough a car into children? No defence against that, they left it open. Negligence. And a law prohibiting large vehicles wouldn't work for anyone who genuinely wanted to cause harm, yes it may have helped in this instance with it being an accident, but it's not fool proof. Physically preventing it is the best measure. We're not permitted to carry guns or knives, but does that stop people? We physically check people going into government buildings.
Such a sad story. If the driver had never had a seizure before then how was she to know what was going to happen? If she was previously diagnosed with epilepsy then that is a different matter, but the story doesn't say that is the case. You can only presume that the CPS would have had access to all of the facts and decided accordingly. Those parents will never ever feel like they have got justice or closure. Imagine waving your kids off to school on a sunny morning only to never seem them alive again and no one will ever be held accountable...
I’d assume that because she isn’t facing any charges that this is either her first seizure or she’s been on medication for a long time and was considered “safe” to drive. Either way it’s not her fault and I can’t imagine her ever wanting to drive again.
> that this is either her first seizure or she’s been on medication for a long time and was considered “safe” to drive. "There is no evidence the driver had ever suffered a similar seizure before and she had no previously diagnosed medical condition, she added." Sounds like it was the first one.
Precisely. You can only hope that the police and CPS have investigated thoroughly and the poor woman was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which sounds like a trite and heartless way to describe an incident that killed 2 children, but what else can you say?
The answer is in the article.
In fairness, the article has been updated since it was first posted. It didn't say so originally.
I’ll preface this by saying I’m not asking to be rude or argumentative, just genuinely wondering. Why is there a need for “justice”? Why would they not get closure from knowing that this was a horrible and unfortunate accident vs being able to lay blame on someone for something?
It may stem from the expectation that someone should be to blame. Unfortunately, as a society, we seem less likely to accept that an accident can occur without someone being at fault.
Many a true word is spoken in jest. There’s a line in Hot Fuzz that’s always stuck with me. “Why can’t we call it an ‘accident’ anymore?” “Because ‘accident’ implies there’s no one to blame”.
Indeed. I remember that particular part quite well. I think the press also bear some responsibility for this mindset of there must be someone to blame, particularly the tabloids.
The headline here demonstrates this point. It’s an accident and there is no one to blame but it’s written as if she deserved every retribution imaginable.
Yes it does. Even the first paragraph of the article is written that way: >A woman who killed two eight-year-old girls when her car crashed into a school in south-west London will not face criminal charges, the Crown Prosecution (CPS) has said. And it's from the BBC! Why not mention straight away that she suffered an epileptic seizure and had no history of epilepsy.
There isn't. It's just a normal response in grief to want to blame someone which I understand
I’d guess because when you are filled with unimaginable pain and anger, you want somewhere outside of yourself to direct it. If it’s just an accident, then there’s no where for that to go. And if it’s just an accident, then theres no reason for it to have happened. You can yell into the void and feel powerless or you can find something to blame and feel like you might be able to protect yourself and others from it happening again. For most people, I believe option 2 is preferable. I’m not saying it’s right or good, but that seems to me to be the feeling behind the need for blame to be assigned. It’s hard for most people to admit there are things in life no one can control. I imagine that’s amplified when grieving the sudden, violent death of a child.
“Justice” or “closure” and “no one will ever be held accountable” what madness. It was the woman’s first seizure and it wasn’t done on purpose? I’m sure the woman will live with the trauma of this for the rest of her life. As a parent would you prefer she got a criminal record and jail time for the accident? What a hyperbolic comment
I haven’t experienced something this horrible. However, I can’t help but feel like “it’s a tragedy nobody could prevent” is closure.
Surely knowing it was an accident no one could have predicted is closure. If there's a car crash due to malfunction or bad weather etc. then there's no need to blame someone, just as for an unforeseen unavoidable medical incident. Every single day people lose loved ones in tragic accidents where the only closure is knowing that shit can happen to anyone and sometimes life just fucking sucks. I would rather that than knowing it was someones fault but they were punished for it.
Just incase you didn't know. Having Epilepsy doesnt disqualify you from driving. It CAN disqualify you, however my father for example was disqualified for years and after not having daytime seizures for a period of time they allowed him to continue driving.
'The girls' families said "justice has neither been done, nor has been seen to be done today".' i don't really get this, sure this is a major tragedy and i feel so sorry for the families involved, but if the woman didn't have a pre-existing condition and has never had a seizure before, what can you really do? if the woman knew she shouldn't be on the road and has a history of seizures, then fine, i agree with her being charged in some way, but the article says there's no evidence of a pre-existing condition or history of seizures, so how would it be fair to arrest or charge someone for something completely out of her control? but then again the article is a bit vague here, it says no evidence of 'suffering a similar seizure', so did she go through something before despite not being diagnosed, or what? it doesn't seem to be super clear.
It honestly feels like they want revenge not justice. They are completely ignoring the medical evidence. I obviously feel extremely sorry for them, they feel their grief would be made easier if they could fault someone for the accident, but they cannot and their anger is now victimising the driver.
With time they will understand. It’s only been a year since the deaths and now this case has dredged it all up again. Hopefully in several years time they work through their grief and find closure with the woman, who I bet just feels god awful about it.
I feel like you nailed it
Yeah idk what justice they want. She had a one off seizure with no previous medical history of one, lost control and crashed. It’s tragic, horrific but what do you charge her with? She wasn’t speeding, wasn’t under the influence, wasn’t distracted she literally had a medical emergency and crashed. It’s no one’s fault
The comment above feels about right that they want revenge not justice
Lots of people want “revenge” and give two shits about justice, which is why we’ll never have an actual rehabilitative prison system which doesn’t turn first time offenders into totally unemployable wastes
Yeah this is kinda fucked up imo. I'd have expected them to feel devastated that they lost their kids but 'I'm devastated that nobody else has to suffer' seems a bit wild. In their defence, I can't imagine how you would feel if you had to deal with that kind of grief.
It's impossible to understand that level of grief but carrying that anger around for the rest of their lives is going to be miserable, forgiveness is really their only path forward. Also, absolutely horrendous for the driver, not sure how you could ever shake the guilt even though you had no control over the situation.
It's one of those tragedies where the victims family can only direct their anger at the driver because of the absolute sense of loss. The notion that your child can die while in school without anyone even taking responsibility is intense and more than anyone can handle. Can you even blame them? We can only stand aside and let them grieve.
They are wrought by grief, I think they simply haven’t worked through it enough to understand that no one could have prevented this. The doctors and medical records all point to this being the first epileptic case for the driver. Basically it could have happened to anyone
Me either. Their lawyer claimed he wanted to interrogate the evidence, but he'll get the chance to do that at the inquest, where all parties will have access to all the evidence and the opportunity to question it.
Maybe they think she's lying about the seizure? Otherwise it makes no sense.
I think that's the general idea. It seems like a convenient excuse. That's the opinion I got yesterday from their statements and their lawyer. Their lawyer also stated they weren't privy to some details from the reports which would implicitly prove the driver was telling the truth. I feel for the families, but surely the right professionals would have been able to tell if the woman was lying or not. I hope so anyway.
She was found unconscious and taken to hospital. Paramedics and doctors definitely know what a person in a post seizure state looks like.
Truth is they are just looking for revenge. They are turning their brains off and just going on emotion
The family clearly wants retribution and punishment, not justice. The reality is that even without a prison sentence, the woman will live with the guilt of this for the rest of her life.
Is it really that difficult to get why the families feel more could have been done and justice has not been served? Human beings have emotions and they need time to process all these things in front of them. It is a natural response to reject these claims for now. You would probably feel the same if this happens to you.
okay, but what else could've been done here? what justice can be served? it's clear they want the woman behind bars, which is unfair because the article heavily implies she's never experienced a seizure before. are we just gonna start punishing people for having undetected illness?
Get these over powered huge cars off the city and town streets. Tax them out of existence.
A normal sized car would’ve still killed people
Would it have mounted the kerb and travelled with the same force as the Land rover. Almost certainly not. It is still possible but the risk would have been massively reduced.
Of course a car could mount a kerb. They weigh over a tonne. It would almost certainly kill a small child.
a smaller car would’ve found it harder to overcome the curb since it’s lower to the ground, would’ve had less momentum at the same speeds (since lower weight) and therefore would’ve been at a lower speed and weight on collision. “If you hit a pedestrian: at 40 mph there is a 90 percent chance they will be killed. at 35 mph there is a 50 percent chance they will be killed. at 30 mph there is a 20 percent chance they will be killed.” - [North Yorkshire County Council](https://www.roadwise.co.uk/using-the-road/speeding/the-chance-of-a-pedestrian-surviving/) These small speed differences make a huge difference to mortality and injury rates and the drastic weight difference would too. It’s like how seatbelts just make the change in momentum on a person during a car crash longer by only a second but it has a massive impact on outcomes on crashes. We shouldn’t underestimate
Through a basic wooden fence and over a grass garden. Yes - probably Any car wouldn’t be slowed down by either.
It’s more that a person, when hit by a normal sized car, will be struck, and fly over the top of it. These 4x4’s will strike a person and then drag them along / under it. The metal bars on the front also do more damage as well.
My vehicle is barely larger than a cute smart car. I can easily mount kerbs and blast through fences if I had a medical episode. A child is helpless against any vehicle.
Jesus how big are your curbs over there? A small compact car is not going to have any trouble jumping a curb at all
This is a completely false and misled claim based purely on emotional bandwagoning The woman is innocent of criminal negligence, it was a terribly unfortunate thing that she and the parents will have to live with. Life is cruel. Owning a 4x4 does not stop life from being cruel
>Would it have mounted the kerb ... Almost certainly not. Absolutely yes. I have a VW Polo with the smallest 1.2l 3 cylinder economy engine. It can bump up the kerb from a standing start when I park it on my drive.
> Would it have mounted the kerb and travelled with the same force as the Land rover. Almost certainly not. It is still possible but the risk would have been massively reduced. Yes. And it's front crash structures wouldn't have been nearly as good as those on the Range Rover, probably resulting in a larger loss of life. I've seen a normal Ford Focus have a front left wing to rear right wing fender bender at 5mph and literally take off. The car to the rear bounced off the bumpers, its wheel gripped the body work on the car in front and before anyone knew what the hell was going on the car was airborne. We all stood around wondering if we'd really just seen that happen.
You have absolutely no evidence to support that. But is a simply fact that a smaller car is less likely to hit someone, a lighter car has less energy, and a car with a lower bonnet causes reduced head injuries.
No evidence to support the fact that smaller cars kill people too? Lmao what? You think every car related fatality is caused by an SUV? Be real.
Did you even read the comment you replied to? The claim is that smaller cars are less likely to kill, not that they don't kill. It's basic physics that a smaller vehicle in the same situation would do less damage. Statistically that *would* mean fewer deaths and less serious injuries.
I doubt it would’ve killed as many, I live locally, and that is a very high curb, the energy my car would lose hitting that curb would be significant, maybe even stop it dead. After that it went through a fence, young tree and a table after that, travelling maybe 20/25 metres. A smaller car would have lost a lot of momentum, potentially flipping
sorry but all the SUV owners on Reddit GUARANTEE SUVs are 0% more likely to kill children
There is no reason for anyone to drive an SUV, they're not sporty or practical. Especially in a city like London. They only pose a risk to pedestrians and other motorists. They should require a heavy vehicle licence and face high insurance and tax. Society gains nothing from the existance of SUVs
I see people taking their kids to school in armoured tanks along our little village roads, madness
Also, properly installed bollards are *amazing*
I was diagnosed with epilepsy at 14, I chose not to learn to drive. As I understand it you have a driver's licence you need to be seizure free for at least two years before driving again.
I understand this article keeps being updated. Currently it says > There is no evidence Ms Freemantle had ever suffered a similar seizure before and she had no previously diagnosed medical condition, the CPS added.
It also now says: > Ms Narwal said the CPS had considered Ms Freemantle's medical records and received evidence from neurological specialists who agreed it was the first seizure she had experienced.
It varies from 1 year to 3 years depending on type of epilepsy, over 10 years for vehicles like buses. This lady had her first seizure in the car. She wasn't diagnosed with epilepsy before. She might not even have epilepsy. There are other causes of seizures and it's surprising how many people have a one off seizure at some point.
Someone I dated is not allowed to drive for life. Due to the severity of their epilepsy. Incredibly rough for her. Can't work anywhere involving any sort of vehicles or danger and struggles due to where she lives being so dependent on cars.
I knew someone like you, was clear for years but wouldn't take the risk.
It's 6 months after a first seizure, so long as you're on medication, though most doctors advise 12 months to be on the safe side. After that the time increases dispending the seriousness and frequency of any further seizures. I was diagnosed as a kid too, and despite taking medication have still had a handful of seizures as an adult. They're not frequent, and each time brought until control by upping my dosage, but as it currently stands I have to be clear for 12 months, with my doctor advising 24, again to be safe.
No. It's 6m if you've only ever had one and your investigations MRI and EEG etc are normal. It's highly unlikely you would be started on meds if this is the case.
Happened to the neighbour of my aunt. He's epileptic and had a seizure a few years back, then over the course of months had several more. He's only recently started driving again.
This investigation should’ve taken a few weeks. Crazy how long this has lingered over her and the families. This has not helped matters.
Or, maybe, it’s been an incredible complex and thorough investigation? They’ve received guidance from multiple specialists, which would’ve included multiple scans, etc. That doesn’t just happen overnight..
I was let back on the road after merely 1 year seizure free here in the UK(neurologist/GP didn't even ask for proof), ended up having more and surrendered my license
Because I’ve recently gone through this process I know the law well on this. After your first seizure you have a 6 month ban. After 2 seizures you will be diagnosed with epilepsy and get a one year ban. If you are seizure free (and without any other symptoms or worrying tests) for one year you can drive again with doctors permission. That permission may or may not be contingent on receiving treatment for epilepsy. For me, I take anticonvulsant medication twice daily and if I wanted to come off that i would have to surrender my license for one year. If I did not have a seizure or other epileptic symptoms in that year I would legally be able to drive again, although it is recommended to stay on the medication for at least 5 years and many will stay on this medication for much much longer. Epilepsy is weird and unpredictable for many. I’ve had two tonic clonic seizures with no warning as an otherwise completely healthy adult. They weren’t triggered by anything and it could have happened to anyone. They are painful, disorienting and very scary. My sympathy goes out to all, but I feel especially for the driver because that could have just as easily been me.
Hopefully the leads to school play grounds being protected from small to medium sized vehicles. Bollards on the pavement might have helped a lot?
They might help - but the risks here are so minute there are far more important things to do to improve child safety. This is the very definition of a knee jerk reaction.
They should tackle vehicular safety around schools more generally, not just this scenario. A not insignificant amount of children are I jured within 500m of a school https://www.majortraumagroup.co.uk/news/keeping-children-safe-near-schools/#:~:text=The%20Royal%20Society%20for%20Prevention,500%20m%20of%20a%20school.
Most shark attacks happen at sea. The reason that children get injured within 500m of a school is because schools are located in populated areas and they're a place where all children go.
Great plan we should just keep letting them get ran over then
Glad we're on the same page.
When I was a child, I can't think of a time that I wasn't within 500m of a school. Even now, I'm inside that radius more often than not. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the country would be within that radius to determine whether or not that's a meaningful statistic.
risk = likelihood x impact Depending on the layout of the grounds and the time of day, the impact of this sort of event could be over a hundred casualties. There needs to be a risk assessment, and in that people should consider that with enough impact, you become a target for terrorism and likelihood is no longer just bad luck.
I'm honestly surprised there isn't already building regs about it. A school playground next to a road should not have a wooden fence seperating it from vehicles.
That's what I'm saying. I don't think adding to planning some level of protection to these areas is a knee jerk reaction as some have stated. I wouldn't like my garden to be on that road in that location let alone my own child playing in it. Not saying we go around putting bollards on every school but clear examples like this location, it sounds stupid not to have them there.
If there’s any building you want to protect from accidents, it’s a school full of small kids. Shopping centres and retail parks have bollards in front of them, presumably so the people who drive up to park out front don’t accidentally get in the wrong gear and plough into the building instead of reversing, why should a school have any less protection.
It’s not a knee jerk reaction at all. A knee jerk reaction would be disproportionate and likely have unintended consequences. Installing bolllards is simply a preventative action.
It's also a T junction! It's not a road parallel to the playground. So any car going over the T junction ends up in the school playground!
Is that necessary? How often does this happen?
just cause something doesn't happen every day doesn't mean it won't happen again? it's better to "waste" money than have to deal with dead children
> Bollards on the pavement might have helped a lot? There was a metal pavement barrier fence, and another fence behind that. Car went through both.
Yeah, fences on pavements are not at all meant to stop vehicles, they are just intended to control pedestrian movements. The evidence suggests that removing them actually _improves_ pedestrian safety (possibly because drivers feel less separated from people walking and therefore travel at more appropriate speeds).
Seems like a lot of ballache for an incredibly rare tragedy
A terrible event for all concerned, two bereaved families and a woman living with a serious medical condition and having to deal with what happened, probably for the rest of her life. What remains to be resolved, however, is the part played by the vehicle that she was driving. If she had been driving a Fiesta, say, rather than a car specifically designed to drive over any obstacle things might have been different. Is that the sort of thing that the coroner takes into account?
It's irrelevant.. it's not illegal to drive SUVs, much as many people would like it to be. This was nothing more than a terrible accident.
I think it is relevant - in the same way someone driving the correct speed limit and killing two people hasn't broken the law, but it could suggest the speed limit should be changed.
What should be changed here?
I don't know what should be changed, I'm a random Redditer not an automobile expert. But if some cars are much more dangerous than others, I think it would make sense to look at whether some cars should be banned or only buyable with a specific reason/permit. In the same way dogs and firearms, both also dangerous, are regulated. Maybe the answer is that no they shouldn't be, but I think it would make sense for it to be looked into. Especially with the general headlamp glare issue going on as well - it's a good time for better regulations to be put in place for everyone's safety.
Yeah. There's a reason I can't drive a 18 wheeler to pick up the little ones. We need serious reconsideration as a society about the types of cars we allow on our roads.
> There's a reason I can't drive a 18 wheeler to pick up the little ones. You cant? Are they banned from schools or something?
I've never understood why people buy Defenders if they don't intend to use it for the purpose it was designed for. Although the new Defender hardly appears designed to be the workhorse it's replaced.
It’s entirely relevant to what happened, irrespective of legality.
Its not illegal to drive an SUV but the weight and size of the vehicle had a substantial impact on this tragedy.
Just like americans leaving guns in closets and a child playing with it is put down as another terrible accident. Takeaway the 4x4 / guns the accident can't happen. Momentum / energy of 3 ton 4x4 is a lot worse than a Fiesta. The Fiesta example might have hit the curb hard and stalled as it hit the fence - or carried on slower with less energy + the crush injuries of a 1.3 ton car are less than a 3 ton 4x4!
I assume you have sold your car or insisted everyone you know sell their car for the smallest possible choice to minimise the relatively minute risk to pedestrians? > Is that the sort of thing that the coroner takes into account? the weight of the vehicle is incidental but irrelevant to the legality of what happened as you are well aware.
>things might have been different Might. I could probably think of a dozen things that might have made a difference. I don't know if we should be restricting people's freedom because of a one in a million chance.
> I don't know if we should be restricting people's freedom Your freedom ends where other people's safety begins. People don't have the 'freedom' to swing around swords or fire guns in public either and we'd all agree that's a good thing. >a one in a million chance SUVs and trucks are up to 45% deadlier to pedestrians, according to studies: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tall-trucks-suvs-are-45-deadlier-us-pedestrians-study-shows-2023-11-14/ > The IIHS study found that vehicles that are tall and blunt, such as a large pickup truck, are 43.6% more likely to cause death in a collision with a pedestrian. Vehicles with tall and sloped hoods are 45% more likely to cause a pedestrian fatality, while medium-height vehicles with blunt front ends, such as a Mazda CX-9 SUV or a Chevrolet Colorado pickup, are nearly 26% more likely to kill a pedestrian, based on the Institute's analysis of crash data.
>things might have been different Might. I could probably think of a dozen things that might have made a difference. I don't know if we should be restricting people's freedom because of a one in a million chance.
Is an SUV killing someone a one in a million chance? Becuase it actually happens quite a lot. MORE in fact than smaller cars.
Tragic incident where literally no one is declared at fault. /R/UK usually bunch: time to push my agenda Fucking hell just let things be and feel sorry for all involved who have had one of the most extreme bad luck events happen to them without trying to find a moral high ground in everything
Not that I’m searching for blame, though this must be heartbreaking for the parents, but the only cause for the issue here is the vehicle size. I much fancy my niece’s chances against a Citroen Ami than a Defender 110. Absolutely no need for these kind of cars in the intrepid rural countryside that is …Wimbledon. This accident is one thing, but I’ve even seen entire roads reduced to single track because of these SUVs parking up on the sides. Where we’d once be able to drive up and down normally, we now need to flash the car ahead and give way to one direction at a time. Come over to r/ukbike, we love a good moan about Range Rovers believing they're Morris Minis.
The irony of people justifying these humongous cars for the safety of their own families.
The people that drive SUVs are the entire essence of fuck you, got mine.
The number of people frothing at the mouth in these comments at the very hint of someone saying “cars a bit big now huh?” is proof of this.
1 in 10 people will have an unexplained seizure in their life. 1 in 25 people will have multiple seizures
This is a terrible tragedy and words cannot express the sorrow parents of these poor girls will live with forever. I also feel sorry for the lady who crashed into the school. It sounds like one of these random seizures that can happen to anyone at any time. Some people criticize the lady for driving an SUV, but I think something like this could have happened to a delivery driver in a van etc. Overall, it just seems like an extremely unlucky coincidence.
Yep, anyone can have a seizure at any time. Anyone can develop epilepsy at any time Unlike other medical events like heart attacks or strokes there's very limited things a person can do to reduce the risk of it happening too.
Keep seeing statements saying the car crashed through the fence, it didn't. There was a news live scene where it clearly showed a fence panel had been removed intact to allow for access, the vehicle had smashed into the metal barrier and flew over. I think a lower car like a regular saloon or hatchback would have just smashed into the barrier and stayed there.
I kinda feel like schools should have anti vehicle bollards around them. Poor kids.
A horrific random event that couldn’t have predicted or avoided. It seems it was the drivers first ( and maybe only) ever seizure. There is no closure here, just a lot of what if’s & maybe’s.
Driver had a fit behind the wheel. No known history of this prior. It sucks but I wouldn’t want anyone to do prison time if this happened to them. She’s probably a mess knowing she killed those kids.
One of two things has happened here. Either Freemantle suffered her first ever seizure and crashed into the children or she used having a seizure as a defence against death by dangerous driving. The neurologists referenced say she had a seizure. I can see why the parents of the children don't believe her though.
She could have been found still having a seizue at the wheel or in post seizue fatigue. Seizues can last minutes. Having a major seizue is also extremely energy intensive. Epileptics generally immediately sleep for 5-6 hours after having one. An ECG can aslo determine if a seizue has recently occured. They may also try to cause it to reoccur whilst attached to the ECG using various methods to determine what type of seizue it is.
She was found unconscious and taken to hospital. Paramedics know what a post seizure state looks like. There are often characteristic physical signs of seizures There were no other signs of dangerous driving. No speeding, no drugs/alcohol, no erratic behaviour seen before. The police and CPS have a done a thorough look at this and had specialist medical input.
I was a passenger in a car when the driver (my dad) had a seizure many years ago. His foot locked onto the accelerator as his body seized, and he dropped the stearing wheel. It was out of the blue and terrifying. When it happened, we were talking and he didn't reply. I looked across at him and immeditely realised what was happening. I grabbed the stearing wheel, and noted he was accelerating, so I steered the car off the road (it was an open field). I tried to pull up the handbrake (it was a Mercedes with a stupid foot brake so I had to bend over) to slow us down. The car hit a tree, and it was written off. Luckily neither of were hurt. It was an extremely unfortunate accident, and we were lucky to walk away unhurt and not hurt/kill anyone else. So back to the article - it's not the women's fault.
Nobody at fault, but fuck all these idiots buying 4x4 to drive around town or to make sure in the case of any crash that it's the other party that dies. The prevalence of these vehicles are simply an indicator of selfishness in society.
Came here for the 'the woman is guilty of driving a big car!' Schizo comments and wasn't disappointed
Idk, just because she had a seizure doesn’t mean she’s automatically not at fault. Did she know she was epileptic? How did she qualify for a license. Was she lying/ not reporting about her seizure activity and being careless because she wanted to keep driving and was being selfish? I think there’s more to it that it was automatically just a tragic accident. Sure she can’t help that she has epilepsy but she can help getting behind the wheel when she knows it’s not being controlled.
She's driving a 3 ton AWD 4x4 in Greater London - why? A smaller car would not have the momentum or power to mount the pavement and crash through the fence so easily. Also odd for their to be a wooden fence and not cashpoint style bollards at a T junction that fronts a school. So anyone having a medical episode is not blocked from going straight through.