> Doug wrote:
>

>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1040230/Uninsured-learner-driver-killed-schoolgirl...

>
> I see you've commented on the Mail comments page, Doug

> 1. As a number of people have pointed out, the car crash didn't kill the
> girl. That crime was committed by a passing motorist and that person
> should be found, charged, convicted and heavily punished.

> 2. The driver who has been convicted didn't have insurance nor licence and
> the car had a defective tyre. Would having insurance and a licence have
> prevented the crash? I suspect not.

> "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:KfudnU40ZZLWww7VnZ2dnUVZ8tHinZ2d@bt.com...

>> 1. As a number of people have pointed out, the car crash didn't kill
>> the girl. That crime was committed by a passing motorist and that
>> person should be found, charged, convicted and heavily punished.

>
> Ah, has the passing motorist not even been traced? I thought he'd been
> released without charge by the police. Maybe I'm wrong.
>
> From the circumstances of the accident, it certainly *sounds* as if
> he is guilty: if the girl had been flung from the car in the crash,
> he could have quite blamelessly have hit her because he was unable to
> stop in time for a crash that happened right in front of him. But if
> she got out of the car herself, that suggests that sufficient time
> elapsed that a responsible driver would have seen the wreckage of the
> car and would started to slow down.
>

>> 2. The driver who has been convicted didn't have insurance nor
>> licence and the car had a defective tyre. Would having insurance and ...

> Having a licence would at least have proved that he'd passed a driving
> test.