Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 109756	2010-05-21 21:43:00	Wake Up Boy Racers.	Trev (427)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
886996	2010-05-23 07:30:00	On the other hand. If you were to run over a 4 year child at about 30 kmh then that child can be just as dead as one run over at 160 Kmh. Take the recent ones where the child is flattened by a driver backing out of a driveway for example.	Sweep (90)
886997	2010-05-23 07:33:00	Yes, but there's a difference. One is a sad accident, one is a crime.	ubergeek85 (131)
886998	2010-05-23 07:40:00	Another thing; www.nzherald.co.nz 'He lost control' - mum defends fatal crash teen How would she know? Was she in the car? Has she been on-site with the SCU? Methinks she's just trying to make it look better.	ubergeek85 (131)
886999	2010-05-23 08:02:00	Just seen a boy racer go straight on a bend in Nelson barely missing a taxi, the racer had all 4 wheels locked up. Pity the stupid sod didn't hit the post that is there	gary67 (56)
887000	2010-05-23 08:14:00	Yes, but there's a difference. One is a sad accident, one is a crime. I'm afraid I have to disagree here. At this stage there is no evidence that the person who killed the 4 yr old meant to do it. Define accident please. It would have been accidental that the Mother and two children happened to be at that place at the time the vehicle mounted the footpath. We certainly can't blame them for being in the wrong place at that time. If the driver had stopped on the way to where he was going for a Big Mac then he would not have been on the road at that time and place either. If the driver had undergone defensive driving courses before getting a full licence to drive he may have not have lost control of the vehicle. If the parents had said you are not buying a modified vehicle and put him in a 1300 cc Starlet instead? We all look for people to blame and we also do it before any actual evidence or facts are produced. The world is full of IFs and BUTs. Interesting that the enforcement authority is trying to get some facts before any charge is being laid. My definition of accident is any event that was unforseen. Last time you were putting together decking and hammering nails you knew your thumb was in the way but you hit it anyway didn't you? Or did you do it on purpose?	Sweep (90)
887001	2010-05-23 10:18:00	I'm afraid I have to disagree here. I'll have to disagree with you here too. I'm working under the theory that he was drifting around the corner. Also, I guess I should say that the guy who did it is known to my girlfriend. I haven't met him though. Sure, he didn't mean to crash through a fence and kill a kid, but he did. It's the end result of a chain of events. He chose to loon and moon around, he chose to drive too fast for the conditions. As a result of those choices, he ended up losing control of his vehicle, and ploughing into innocent children. His choices were poor, and most likely illegal. It was an accident, doesn't mean he's innocent. Whereas if a mother accidentally backs over her own child, sure, it's also a result of poor choices (not properly checking behind her vehicle), but the fact is that she wasn't doing anything illegal (speeding, drifting, looning and mooning, you get the idea). Both are accidents, one is the result of illegal actions, one isn't. (Although I'm not saying a mother couldn't or wouldn't be charged for backing over a child)	ubergeek85 (131)
887002	2010-05-23 10:46:00	I agree with comments before you will never educate these boy racer drivers in million years, just got accept there will be causalities on the road just like in war. Its just up to judges to sentence these murdering thugs to the maximum prison sentence for what ever they are charged. Need to make another law called vehicular manslaughter and throw the racers in jail. Not saying these numbnuts would learn even if their best mate is jailed they are so thick they would just carry on racing on the road. But at least the victims family can get get some revenge on these murdering bastards.	prefect (6291)
887003	2010-05-23 11:00:00	I'll have to disagree with you here too. I'm working under the theory that he was drifting around the corner. Also, I guess I should say that the guy who did it is known to my girlfriend. I haven't met him though. Sure, he didn't mean to crash through a fence and kill a kid, but he did. It's the end result of a chain of events. He chose to loon and moon around, he chose to drive too fast for the conditions. As a result of those choices, he ended up losing control of his vehicle, and ploughing into innocent children. His choices were poor, and most likely illegal. It was an accident, doesn't mean he's innocent. Whereas if a mother accidentally backs over her own child, sure, it's also a result of poor choices (not properly checking behind her vehicle), but the fact is that she wasn't doing anything illegal (speeding, drifting, looning and mooning, you get the idea). Both are accidents, one is the result of illegal actions, one isn't. (Although I'm not saying a mother couldn't or wouldn't be charged for backing over a child) Poor choices. I agree with you. But if a Mother or Father backs over a child in the driveway who is to say that it was an accident as such? I would hope that is all it was but without proving intent we can't say it was not manslaughter or murder. I don't know what the person was doing on the road at that time. We don't know and that's my point. Prove your theory.	Sweep (90)
887004	2010-05-23 13:04:00	We don't know and that's my point. Prove your theory. I'll admit, I can't. However, going off of a number of factors, IMO, he was mooning and looning. I'm judging this off of the type of car, the area itself (I'm familiar with it, he would have to be fair hoofing it to lose control in that situation, even if the road is wet, just look at how much momentum the car had), the type of people who generally live in the area, the fact that he tried to perform CPR (!) on a child he just ran down (in real life, even when performed professionally, it has a very poor success rate, and usually results in cracked ribs IIRC, the child most likely died from crush-type injuries, if not impact-related). But you are right, this is all just how I see it, not by any means proof. We'll have to wait for it to play out in court.	ubergeek85 (131)
887005	2010-05-23 13:29:00	I'll admit, I can't. However, going off of a number of factors, IMO, he was mooning and looning. I'm judging this off of the type of car, the area itself (I'm familiar with it, he would have to be fair hoofing it to lose control in that situation, even if the road is wet, just look at how much momentum the car had), the type of people who generally live in the area, the fact that he tried to perform CPR (!) on a child he just ran down (in real life, even when performed professionally, it has a very poor success rate, and usually results in cracked ribs IIRC, the child most likely died from crush-type injuries, if not impact-related). But you are right, this is all just how I see it, not by any means proof. We'll have to wait for it to play out in court. Thanks for the reply Geekster and I have to admit that I am not familiar with the area. We read the news and may come to conclusions based on the reports which may be sadly lacking in fact. Then, when it does come to court, if ever, some valid evidence may be suppressed or not admissable due to technicalities once the lawyers get hold of the matter. This on both sides of the fence I might add. I do note in this particular case the Police have not yet preferred charges which would tend to indicate that the matter is not as open and shut as some may believe at this time. I further note that the survivors seem to have gone on record as saying that they are not angry at the the driver. Time will tell I guess. I also like the news reports where it says the car lost control on a bend. No driver that lost control? Further I must add that I'm very pleased that I haven't run over anyone yet and I feel for the loss on both sides.	Sweep (90)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10