This made me think... Read it slowly...

[JBDrifter]

FYI - You can speed without breaking the law.

And for the record, if it was a 60 zone the driver could have been doing 50 and hit the kid and she would still likely have died. 70 and she dies. Breaking the speed limit becomes the scapegoat. Nothing more. If it was a car accident it would have had to be high speed or head on. In which case the same applies. Being in a car accident at 90kph or 110kph is likely to kill you regardless. Problem is, if it's the latter the speed is the scapegoat again and somehow becomes the cause of the crash.

I'm pretty sure speeding is breaking the law. I understand you can do it without being caught, but it's still breaking the law regardless. If you can in fact speed without breaking the law I'd like to know how... not having a dig, I seriously want to know.

Ok so lets make up some numbers now to fit into this story. It's a 60 zone and the driver was doing 70, he was unable to stop due to his speed (now we're still assuming the girl is on the road). If he was doing 60 would he have still hit her, and if he did would she have been killed or maybe just a few broken bones?

You are still missing the point though, or rather the moral of the story. Anyone can tell you that the moral of the story is "don't speed". It's very obvious.

 

[JBDrifter]

You are correct. She was killed by a speeding driver, but not because of a speeding driver.

I posted the OP to make everyone think... minux just pointed out the obvious and most people clearly don't understand his points.

I understand minux's point and I agree with them, I just don't see why the responsibility of the speeding driver is being ignored when it is obviously the topic of the story.

 

[CSP]

Definition of speeding: Moving with speed.

 

[JBDrifter]

Definition of speeding: Moving with speed.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up lol... sounds more like a definition of motion?

Speeding = travelling at a speed greater than the speed limit.



Now I hope you're just being sarcastic in this thread too :yeah:

 

[minux]

I understand minux's point and I agree with them, I just don't see why the responsibility of the speeding driver is being ignored when it is obviously the topic of the story.

Where is anyone ignoring the speeding driver? Fact is the guy was speeding he was guilty, however, the entire incident could of been avoided had the parents not allowed their child onto the road. They are as guilty as the speeding driver in that sort of circumstance. Had they been responsible she would not have been on the road, thus not killed. Sure you can say maybe if he was doing 60 she would be alive, who can say, you could argue also that had he been doing 80 she would of ran out after he passed.

All I am saying is, when pedestrians are killed ON a road, it is more the pedestrians fault than any if the driver has not lost control of the vehicle.

 

[JBDrifter]

Where is anyone ignoring the speeding driver? Fact is the guy was speeding he was guilty, however, the entire incident could of been avoided had the parents not allowed their child onto the road. They are as guilty as the speeding driver in that sort of circumstance. Had they been responsible she would not have been on the road, thus not killed. Sure you can say maybe if he was doing 60 she would be alive, who can say, you could argue also that had he been doing 80 she would of ran out after he passed.

All I am saying is, when pedestrians are killed ON a road, it is more the pedestrians fault than any if the driver has not lost control of the vehicle.

I agree with everything except for what is in bold.

The moral of this this story is don't speed. It's blindingly obvious. If the focus of the story was on the irresponsible parent, or the whereabouts and actions of the child at the time, then those details would have been given and you'd have a topic to talk about then.
How do you know the child was on the road? Those details weren't told. The only details we got was that she was hit by the speeding driver. That is because the story is targeting drivers and the need to be responsible on the roads.
When you flip it around and say the child shouldn't have been there in the first place you are basically saying that speeding wouldn't be a problem if the risk of hitting a child was not there. Maybe so, but that risk is still there unfortunately, whether we like it or not. So, as a driver we need to be responsible and drive at safe speeds, ie. at or below the speed limit! And that is exactly the message that the story was putting forward.

 

[policehoon]

Minux has not lost contact with reality; he is just the run of the mill, "it’s not my fault, its someone else's" group.

When we are taught to drive, we are told to be very vigilant and keep our eyes on the road for any obstacles, both moving and none moving.

The law of the land we live in states, "that if you hit a pedestrian, then it’s your fault. If you don't agree with the law, then speak with your local representative and arrange for the law to be changed (good luck).

Obviously reading thru this discussion, people have and will continue to have different views and takes on the situation.

But the truth of the matter, if the speeding driver was not speeding, then he may have had enough time and space to avoid the child in the first place.

In my driving experience of 25 years I have had only one child run out in front of me.

A nearly collided with another vehicle coming the other way to avoid her, but I know that I could not have lived with myself if had killed that little girl.

Yes I could have blamed the kid for what happened; yes I could have blamed the parents for letting her play out on the road.

But kids don't inadvertently just run out onto the road to be killed, why because they don't think about the consequences of what may occur.

Now Minux when you or if you run over a child, (pray that this never happens) I firmly believe you will change your tune.

You only have to look at people who have been thru a tragedy, and then months later get the survivor guilt’s.

 

[minux]

Minux has not lost contact with reality; he is just the run of the mill, "it’s not my fault, its someone else's" group.

When we are taught to drive, we are told to be very vigilant and keep our eyes on the road for any obstacles, both moving and none moving.

The law of the land we live in states, "that if you hit a pedestrian, then it’s your fault. If you don't agree with the law, then speak with your local representative and arrange for the law to be changed (good luck).

Obviously reading thru this discussion, people have and will continue to have different views and takes on the situation.

But the truth of the matter, if the speeding driver was not speeding, then he may have had enough time and space to avoid the child in the first place.

In my driving experience of 25 years I have had only one child run out in front of me.

A nearly collided with another vehicle coming the other way to avoid her, but I know that I could not have lived with myself if had killed that little girl.

Yes I could have blamed the kid for what happened; yes I could have blamed the parents for letting her play out on the road.

But kids don't inadvertently just run out onto the road to be killed, why because they don't think about the consequences of what may occur.

Now Minux when you or if you run over a child, (pray that this never happens) I firmly believe you will change your tune.

You only have to look at people who have been thru a tragedy, and then months later get the survivor guilt’s.

You think it will change me? I have seen things that would make you curl in your sleep. You think the accidents you have seen are gruesome? You haven't seen anything.

At the end of the day, I obey the law, if some dip**** of a parent lets their kid run onto the road and I hit them, I will sleep easy knowing I wasn't breaking the law and it was not my fault that I hit someone. You think Ive lost contact with reality? Not at all, I do not blame anyone else except for who is truly responsible. Care to explain how it is a drivers fault that a child ends up on the road? In this day and age everyone is looking for someone else to blame, if I am breaking the law and something happens I will wear whatever punishment is dished out, that said, I do my best to never put myself in a position of breaking the law.

 

[commsirac]

At the end of the day, we have had to introduce lower speed limits around schools etc, because some people out there just cant recognise potentially lethal situations. Driving past a school where kids could do silly things or stupid parents could let them do silly things is just a reality of life, that possibly wont change unless we export half the population.

The law changing to 40km/h is there because some creatures would keep doing their 64km/h (that they know wouldnt get a ticket for ) no matter what the prevailing conditions are like.

Hell, Ill go past some schools doing 20km/h because there is just too many people swarming around the side of the road close to the roadway. I reckon Ive got a pretty good chance of avoiding anyone "jumping" out in front of the car(foot poised on brake) at that speed. Couldnt give a stuff about the tradey in the ute behind me flashing their lights telling me to go faster.

 

[Hardstylin]

You are correct. She was killed by a speeding driver, but not because of a speeding driver.

I posted the OP to make everyone think... minux just pointed out the obvious and most people clearly don't understand his points.

Ah fair enough.