London driver, 79, won't go to jail over deadly Girl Guides crash
She was driving 120km/h in a 50km/h school zone.
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/sentencing-looms-for-driver-79-convicted-in-deadly-brownies-crashOpen linkView original on slrpnk.net149
Comments32
Yeah she shouldn't drive again, if she's not even capable of admitting her mistake and still thinks she should be allowed to drive...
I mean even if it was a mechanical failure what kind of person would like to ever drive again after killing a child?
I agree, but the article says that they couldn't find any evidence of mechanical failure, none, zero, so thankfully we don't even have to consider that scenario because it doesn't apply to her.
If her car was not wrecked completely, a mechanical failure should be detectable?
London, Ontario (Canada)
Extremely disappointing outcome. IMO the driver should have faced the full force of the law, especially considering how this incident resulted in a loss of life and such severe trauma and injury to the poor kids involved.
A 5 year driving prohibition is just a slap on the wrist, for literal manslaughter - involuntary or not
is it involuntary if you drive at 120kmh in a 50kmh zone ?
Exactly. Thatโs like saying firing a gun into crowded theater and killing people is โinvoluntary manslaughter.โ
If she wonโt even acknowledge responsibility, she canโt be trusted not to drive. Iโm thinking lifetime house arrest, including an ankle monitor, MINIMUM.
Seniors should not be allowed to drive.
Iโd say periodic testing is warranted for all drivers. A lot of people shouldnโt be driving.
Your license is valid for 10 years and to renew it you have to re-test. Most states could double the dmv budget and barely blink and if it was federal it would be even easier... but we can't have nice things, and more idiots on the roads crashing means more cars, more sales, more insurance, more collisions, more chaos, more more more!
Iโve lived in countries where test validity decreases with age. So a senior would be tested more frequently.
The nature of the test is important too. If your test canโt capture risky behavior, itโs not doing much.
Can you explain a bit? How does that work? We don't re-test at all.
Sure! Iโll talk in generic terms here because these regulations tend to change with time and each country will have their own particularities.
You have your license validity and test validity, they are not coupled. Your license is never valid for longer than your test, and it expires so the government can update your picture, check documents, make sure you pay your fines, etc.
There are also follow-up tests that you must pass after getting your license. They are not a full test, so itโs cheaper to run, but intended to check you still know your basics, are up to date in major regulations, still maintain minimal aptitude for driving, etc.
Iโll come up with an example, bear in mind I didnโt research actual numbers because that would depend on where in the world youโre looking at. So perhaps you need to retest one year after first getting your license, then 5 years, then every 10. But then, if youโre over 55, you need to retest every 5 years. Then every 3 years if youโre over 65. Then finally every year if youโre over 75.
Brazil and Germany had some rules like that but not all, in some shape. I donโt know what their current regulations are.
Yeah but letting old people drive is like letting blind people drive. Sometimes literally.
That's just more theatre. Testing is waaaay too easy. Since Canada (in this case) is such a car centric society without suitable alternatives, the testing is barely a check box. The government knows it is too challenging to live without a license for the average person.
Still probably a good idea though, at least it gets the really sketchy people off the roads.
Edit: grammar
If your testing is useless, thatโs another problem. A test that doesnโt test what you want to test doesnโt pass the test.
Seniors should have quality public transport options to use and bike/walking infrastructure for short trips or mobility scooters.
They should, but they should have to undergo regular evaluations from both their doctor and licensing agency. To counter this, they should also be offered free lifetime public transit passes and significant discounts for taxis, ride-hailing apps, etc.
They do in Canada, but it's an easy written test. No driving test. And only once you hit 80.
Every driver should be regularly retested. People can develop bad habits, vision can change, reaction times can change, the rules of the road change, yet we trust people to drive safely forever after just a handful of tests while they are teenagers.
But that would be too expensive! /s
I say too bad. Don't do something if you can't do it correctly so we shouldn't allow cars into cities if we aren't going to make it as safe as possible.
As long as our infrastructure is the way it is driving is a fundamental necessity, unfortunately.
Humans should not be allowed to drive at greater than a running speed anyplace they might encounter another human.
How do you even reach 120km/h in an urban area? It shouldn't be even physically possible due to the curves' radius and such.
Especially in London, ON traffic. I've been there, it's nuts for a city of its size.
I thought the headline alone was frustrating but giving the article a read was absolutely infuriating
Fake London strikes again.
Yeah, too bad the punishment for driving without a license isn't that severe, so she probably will do it. Unfortunately, driving is a necessity for many people, just to get by.
In London, a city with a great public transportation system. Many old people in the US drive because they have to.
This is London, Ontario. It does not have a great public transportation system and is a stroad-filled, parking lot paved-over urban hellhole.
Wrong London.
Permanent license suspension would be enough to prevent it from happening again, perhaps more repercussions. But your suggestion is a display of cruelty and revenge.