|road rage against father pulling child in trailer||MJ|
Jul 22, 2003 2:52 AM
Road rage attack on child
Stephen and Emily Kerwin were on a bicycle with trailer
A driver had admitted deliberately reversing his Range Rover over a four-year-old girl and her father in a road rage attack.
Carl Baxter, 36, smashed into Emily Kerwin and her father, Stephen, who were on a bike and trailer, after Mr Kerwin remonstrated with him for driving too close to them, Hull Crown Court heard.
Emily lost five teeth and suffered fractures to her face and palate, in the incident on the A1034 at Newbald, East Yorkshire.
Stephen Kerwin, 52, suffered a broken leg and pelvis and still has a metal leg brace.
He used the car as a weapon - this is what is commonly known as a road rage attack
Simon Keely, prosecuting
Baxter, a chemical engineer, of Shipton Road, Market Weighton, East Yorkshire, stopped his car and reversed 200 yards at high speed after Mr Kerwin shook his fist at him, the court was told.
The trailer was crushed under the rear wheels of the vehicle and Emily was found by paramedics hanging upside down by the straps in her buggy.
Baxter fled the scene, but later returned as police and ambulance services helped the father and daughter.
Prosecuting, Simon Keely told the court: "He used the car as a weapon to cause injury. This is what is commonly known as a road rage attack."
Baxter pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, two charges of causing grievous bodily harm, and one count of leaving the scene of an accident.
Sentencing was adjourned pending a report from Humberside probation service.
Speaking outside the court after the hearing, Baxter said he had not realised there was a child in the trailer.
"I would give anything for it not to have happened. I want to apologise to the family."
|re: Lock this bloke up for life||Rob11966|
Jul 22, 2003 3:13 AM
So it would have been OK if it was only the dad. This bloke should be locked up and the key should be thrown away.This is about as bad as it gets.
|In the US||filtersweep|
Jul 22, 2003 4:06 AM
|We view cars as a "right" to the degree that we seem very skittish about treating vehicular crimes as we would any other crime. He could probably just say it was an accident and he would get away with reckless driving. Even if it were intentional he might get maybe five years in the US ("Yes, I meant to back up because I thought the man was summoning me, but I lost control in reverse and hit him" or something like that). It will be interesting to see how the UK handles it.
Ironically, there have been several occasions of police around here shooting and killing the driver of a vehicle who attempted to run over them (you know, when they have the car surrounded with weapons drawn and the driver moves the car even an inch toward an officer). They clearly consider the car to be a weapon under those circumstances.
|I'm not sure I agree||Steve_0|
Jul 22, 2003 4:18 AM
|Firstly, nearly every state views cars as a privledge, not a right. Secondly, "Death by auto" type charges are not uncommon. Over the years, I've lost several acquaintences to people now behind bars, with 'weapons' ranging from cars to boats.
Don't know what part of the US you're from, but around here, vehicles are certainly deemed weapons when used as such. Just like a baseball bat would be.
|I'm not sure I agree||filtersweep|
Jul 22, 2003 8:04 AM
|Sure they CAN be, but do you really think the sentences are the same as when someone pulls out a gun? Around here a guy was run over after he yelled at a driver in a car speeding down the street. The driver turned around and drove partially across the lawn to kill him in front of his children. He was charged with murder, but he had a ridiculously short sentence (a few years). If he had used a gun, he'd never been seen again.|
Jul 22, 2003 8:23 AM
|premeditation, presumptive sentencing, mitigating factors, aggravating factors all play a role.
I really don't think there's a conspiracy to suppress sentencing for death-by-auto due to the popularity of the auto. More likely you have a crummy DA and/or judge. They beauty of America is that YOU can change that.
|Vehicles can be catagorized as Deadly Weapons...nm||Tower|
Jul 22, 2003 5:13 AM
|Same kinetic energy as a canon ...||Humma Hah|
Jul 22, 2003 5:52 AM
|A 3200 lb vehicle (such as maybe an SUV) at 60 mph has the same kinetic energy as a 32 lb cannon ball fired at 600 mph (by Old Ironsides). Ordinary firearms cannot compare.|
|3200lb SUV? yeah, maybe a RAV4.||niteschaos|
Jul 22, 2003 10:20 AM
|A lot of people don't understand that thier car ways more than a thousand pounds, so when the try to bump you they just have no clue. A Honda Accord is now up to 3250 pounds. Some full size trucks are twice that.|
|re: road rage against father pulling child in trailer||lemmy999|
Jul 22, 2003 4:38 AM
|Why isn't he being charged with attempted murder or something like that? I would expect if I hit someone with my car that it would kill them. So I wouldn't run over a cyclist or his trailer without expecting to kill them, so this sounds like it was his intention.|
|they do that in England? nm||DougSloan|
Jul 22, 2003 6:29 AM
|Another Reason for banning Child Trailers||wink|
Jul 22, 2003 6:46 AM
|No matter how "right" we are, shouldn't we really think about putting our kids on the back of bikes and going out into traffic? Of course we are right, but we still loose against a 4,000 pound vehicle. Keep your kids at home or on the MUTS!|
|When in doubt...BAN IT!!!||biknben|
Jul 22, 2003 7:08 AM
|We have no idea what the circumstances were regarding this incident. Was he in a bike lane? Don't start with knee jerking reactions.
The trailer had nothing to do with the incident. Concentrate your efforts on the problem. Ban a$$hole driver on the road.
|I want to ban people who want to ban things. nm||DougSloan|
Jul 22, 2003 7:44 AM
|That's the most inane thing I've ever heard in my life...||BergMann|
Jul 22, 2003 7:36 AM
|What kind of car do you drive Wink? Do you ever take your child out in it? Have you ever considered the grave peril you are subjecting them to given the fact that even if you drive an SUV, there are tractor-trailers, dumptrucks, buses and other vehicles that could crush yours in the blink of an eye?
Yes, let's lock our children away in a basement where the sky won't fall on their heads, and only let them out once they've reached an age when they too can commit road-rage crimes against adults who should know better than to be riding dangerously underweight vehicles on public roads!!!!!!!
|no, THAT is the most inane thing I've ever heard.||Steve_0|
Jul 22, 2003 7:46 AM
|Locking childeren away in a basement boders child abuse. They should be free to run and play under close adult supervision.|
|You fellas do not get my point...||wink|
Jul 22, 2003 9:25 AM
|We know that cycling is dangerous and there are all kinds of issues to deal with; equipment failure, gravity, weather, roller bladers, other clueless bicyclist, and of course criminal drivers on the road. We choose to ride because we decide that the enjoyment is worth the known risk. If we get injured in a bike today - we all know it will not be surprise.
Why then do I ask that we choose to use some type of selfish logic to subject our helpless children to the danger that we choose to deal with on the open road in our bicycles?
It doesn't matter if we have a right to ride the road with our children in tow, what matters is that it is extremely dangerous and basically a stupid thing to do - that is the reality of the situation!
So call me what you want, but please take some time to contemplate my point and LEAVE your children off your bike. When I read this post, of course I was saddened. Saddened not only by the unbelieveable cowardess of the driver but also the stupidity of the little girls father.
Do what you want, but I will not make matyrs out of my children for the sake of advancing driver awareness and establishing bicyle rights!
One Mans Opinion
|who you callin fella, fella?||Steve_0|
Jul 22, 2003 9:39 AM
|I disagred with the previous poster who recommends locking childeren in the basement.
actually, I agree with you. I cringe every time I see someone towing a child in traffic; Not that I disagree with the person doing so, But because I know I wont take that chance with my child.
I wont even use the ridiculously over-priced babyjogger my wife got me for my runs; not that I dont want to spend my time with my daughter, but because I sometimes fear my OWN life amongst the cell-phonewielding soccermoms of the nation. Putting my own safety is a large-enough risk in her life; I dont want to put her safety at risk also.
Despite my tongue-in-cheek response, I actually agree that you shouldnt shelter children. When my daughter's old enough, she WILL be bicycling in the street. In the meantime, I (personally) dont think she's missing out on life by my not strapping in into a canvas trailer and towing her around the highways backwards. I'd just assume put 'er in the stroller and walk around the neighborhood, where we can interact and have contact.
|You shouldn't ride either.||TWD|
Jul 22, 2003 10:05 AM
|By your logic, you shouldn't ever swing your leg over the top tube again.
No matter, how "right" you are, shouldn't you(the father of your kids)really think about going out into traffic? Of course you are right, but you still loose against a 4,000 pound vehicle. Keep yourself at home or on the MUTS!
Do you want your kids to be orphans, just so you can have a little pleasure from riding your bike out in traffic? How selfish.
|That is why I have life insurance!||wink|
Jul 22, 2003 10:28 AM
Jul 22, 2003 10:34 AM
|I'm certainly worth more dead than alive....and I'm sure my wife could do a better job selecting a husband the second time around.|
|Money's hardly what matters||Mel Erickson|
Jul 22, 2003 2:36 PM
|Your kids would grow up without YOU. I'm not an advocate of taking out of the ordinary risks but biking doesn't fall in that catagory, if you ask me. Taking my family in a car is more dangerous, but I do that also, and so do the vast majority.|
|"not to have happened"?||djg|
Jul 22, 2003 7:25 AM
|He would "give anything for it not to have happened." It didn't just happen, he used a Range Rover as a weapon against a cyclist. I'd say that all involved were lucky that nobody was killed.
It just amazes me: all sorts of people who would never consider waving a gun in somebody's face seem to feel entirely comfortable using multi-thousand pound, high powered vehicles to intimidate other human beings. Running down a cyclist, or a pedestrian, or--for that matter--somebody in a much smaller motorized vehicle is like shooting a gun at the person: the victim may get lucky and sustain "only" minor injuries; really lucky and it's just a scare; but the victim may be crippled or killed. Given that crippled or killed are entirely plausible consequences to such actions, it seems to me that road rage charges ought routinely to contemplate some variety of attempted homicide or murder.
|Follow-up: He got two years..||Fr Ted Crilly|
Jul 22, 2003 8:37 AM
|...which means he'll probably be out in 12 months with good behaviour.
|Shook his fist?||Spoke Wrench|
Jul 22, 2003 8:38 AM
|You know, I can't remember ever seeing someone actually shake a fist. The ever popular one finger salute, however, is common. Shouldn't matter bacause flipping the bird is utterly harmless, but it sure seems to arouse extream disproportionate rage in many otherwise passive people. I wonder if that's what happened.|
Jul 22, 2003 9:11 AM
|I only ever see it in cartoons and really old films|
Jul 22, 2003 9:17 AM
|An older guy that works with me (mid 50s) still shakes his fist instead of giving the finger.|
|I shake my fist||Kristin|
Jul 22, 2003 10:48 AM
|Giving the finger just isn't Christian. ;-)|
|Watch out who you call older||Mel Erickson|
Jul 22, 2003 12:14 PM
|There's quite a few of the over 50 crowd around here (he says as he shakes his fist with lower lip appropriately thrust forward).|
Jul 22, 2003 10:34 AM
|So its okay to run over full grown men with SUV's; but not children. I'll make a mental note of that. He says he would have given anything for it not to have happened??? Um... He's a dollar short and a day late to be making that apology. What an imbicile. If the world were fair and mercy and grace did not exist, then Mr. Baxter deserves to have 5 teeth extracted no novacane--or to have a truck backed over him. A jail term seems to be getting off easy somehow. Then again, I believe in mercy and grace.|
|What should he say at this point in time?||Spoke Wrench|
Jul 22, 2003 11:10 AM
|What he did was wrong and there is no justification for it. We can't, however, change the past. The question is: What should he do now?
I think that it's better to apologize than not to apologize, but I still think that he needs to go to jail.
|I'm not sure I believe he apologized||Kristin|
Jul 22, 2003 11:25 AM
|The quotes sound more like justifications than apologies. He didn't know there was a child in the basket. And he would give anything for it not to have happened. You say that when you've caused an accident by making a mistake, not when you've maliciously attacked someone. The statement is hypicritical. He MADE it happen. I don't hear him owning the wrongness of his actions. At least not based on the quotes in the article.|
|He should say||Mel Erickson|
Jul 22, 2003 12:21 PM
|I have committed an egregious crime for which there is no excuse. I sincerely apologize for my criminal behaviour. I cannot undo what I have done but I will do whatever is necessary to make up for my horrendous act.
And then follow through.