She was driving 120km/h in a 50km/h school zone.

  • whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “It’s clear that Ronnie (McNorgan’s nickname) doesn’t see herself as a criminal,” Millar said after the sentencing. “I think the punishment to someone who is non-criminal, a conviction in itself carries a huge weight.”

    What’s also clear is that McNorgan still refuses to believe the crash was her fault and caused by her confusing the gas pedal with the brake pedal. She continues to maintain, despite the overwhelming evidence presented at the trial last spring, that what caused the crash was mechanical failure.

    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?

    • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • Sibbo@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      If her car was not wrecked completely, a mechanical failure should be detectable?

  • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    4 months ago

    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

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    4 months ago

    If she won’t even acknowledge responsibility, she can’t be trusted not to drive. I’m thinking lifetime house arrest, including an ankle monitor, MINIMUM.

      • hydration9806
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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

        • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          If your testing is useless, that’s another problem. A test that doesn’t test what you want to test doesn’t pass the test.

    • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Humans should not be allowed to drive at greater than a running speed anyplace they might encounter another human.

  • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Especially in London, ON traffic. I’ve been there, it’s nuts for a city of its size.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

  • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    In London, a city with a great public transportation system. Many old people in the US drive because they have to.

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is London, Ontario. It does not have a great public transportation system and is a stroad-filled, parking lot paved-over urban hellhole.