Barfenzie asked:

"Why didn't the car protect it's passengers from serious injury?"

Go back to the SMH article:

"The teenager, who had had her P-plates for 10 days when she was driving her new Peugeot convertible, pleaded guilty to three dangerous driving offences after data from the car's computer showed she was travelling at 90 kmh, nearly twice the speed limit.

The car crashed when she lost control on the wrong side of Raglan Street, a divided street, hitting the kerb and a stone wall before overturning"

Then take a look at the official Peugeot web site on the 206 cabriolet.

http://www.peugeot.co.uk/ppp/cgi-bin/ppkfcwebuk/ppplp1101_02.jsp?_strLCDV=1pt1dc&BV_SessionID=@@@@1272253395.1139832596@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccciaddgljmdhgecefecfgmdfgodfko.0&_strModeHTML=1

The car has some safety features when it comes to rolling, but there is no overall roll bar, probably because this would be 'ugly' and distract from the attraction that the car would have for young drivers. Most modern cars would be stable enough that given even some amount of foolishness they would not have rolled, but this was more than some amount of foolishness.

No car can be 100% safe, that is why we have laws which regulate how we use the roads. Anyone who is either foolish enough, or criminal enough, or both, can arrange to kill someone else in their car without too much difficulty. This woman pleaded guilty to three offenses.

Now lets us look at the street, Raglan street is basically straight with a 90º turn. It was easy to navigate for anyone driving reasonably.

The report of the DEAD girls parents words are interesting:

"Ms Graham's parents were not in court yesterday but had said in victim impact statements that they believed the driver had shown no remorse."

And finally the remark of the beak who sentenced her:

""I'm satisfied that your driving on that day was so serious that the law requires me to impose a custodial penalty," he said."

Lets not get this wrong, the driver of this car put some real effort into this crash.

Scout baits us with “In fact why don't we have pre-emptive death penalties?”

Indeed we do – these are called abortions and are administered by prospective mothers themselves who grow up from teenagers such as these. They seem to be raised to believe that their honest mistakes should be of minimal consequence (to themselves).

This young woman seems destined to accidentally sleep with the wrong guy or marry one. Guess who’s going to be responsible for any resulting consequences. That’ll teach the parents.

Seeker

I don't know where you get the link between this topic and abortion. This young woman is no more or less likely to have an abortion than any other. Abortion is not the sole provence of the rich.

I would strongly prefer for abortion to be unnecessary, either through improved education, contraception and support for potential mothers, as well as by having the value of human life instilled in children from an early age.

However I also recognise that laws will not stop abortions from happening. The best that I can hope for is for third trimester abortions, or at least abortions of near viable foetuses, to be stopped by a combination of action by the community, the medical professions and the judiciary working with law enforcement.

I would hope that this same groundswell may be able to convince moron, selfish drivers that the road rules are in place to keep people alive, and that we should stop treating our road deaths as anything less than manslaughter and murder.

Hamlet, I beleive seeker is trying to swing the discussion in a religious direction.

In Tasmania recently we had a young bloke caught doing 165 kl in a 60 zone, unlicensed, drunk and driving an unregistered car. He had his licence suspended for 18months. Just the other day another bloke was caught doing the same but only 140kl, it will be interesting to see the outcome of that. Then we had the young bloke on P's who was dragging and went through a red light, flattened a car and killed someone. He received a suspended sentence and 9 months loss of licence.

I believe they should be charged with murder and treated accordingly. Rehabilitation comes after you have learnt your mistake, not before and you can't learn that through community service or suspended sentences. If it was mandatory that you lost your licence for life and your car confiscated permanently plus the cost of the case, the insurance and the cost to the victim, if you injure someone whilst breaking the law, then people may begin to take notice.

The problem we face is that the feely good tut tut people have no idea so we are currently faced with people saying, well what will happen if I get caught speeding or yahooing, can't drive for a short while or have to turn up for a few weekends. I have yet to see anyone that has really learnt from counseling if they commit these crimes. They act as though they have when in the sessions, but as soon as they walk out the door, its, who gives a stuff as they go to the pub or ego trip with their friends about how cool they are to have got away with virtual murder.

O bet the woman in question would have thought twice if she knew that she would suffer greatly because of her actions before hand, as would most people. The rest who never learn, lock them up permenantly

Scout made me go off on a tangent. My point is about teaching our children some responsibility – rich or poor, male or female.

It should be a well-known fact that our teenagers can be amongst the most selfish and irresponsible people on this planet, and as futile as it may seem, it would be worthwhile to attempt to teach them awareness and respect for others and the law, to rehabilitate their habits and attitudes, before they make the really serious mistakes. It may save a life – even their own.

When an accident occurs while breaking the law, it should be treated more seriously. When it leads to loss of life, even more so.

There are people in our society whom we wish to protect beyond what is good for our collective self. We could happily continue to spread blame so thinly to the point that individual responsibility becomes optional. For example, we could take a big chunk of it and throw it at the dead and maimed people who chose to ride with such irresponsible friends. Then we can blame the car, the street, its signage, the driver’s experience and state of mind during a high pressure HSC year, and general difficulty of being a girl (teenage or otherwise) … etc. etc.

It is unlikely our youth (or anyone for that matter) can be rehabilitated with such social attitudes and criminal justice. What sort of messages do we send along with these judgements? It is OK to make the mistake of ignoring the law, more so if you are a woman, and absolutely so, if you are a young, rich woman who happens to manslaughter a dear friend.

Seeker

You can start with yourself with regard to responsibility. I and no one else on this forum can make you do anything - tangents or otherwise.

You are responsible for your reactions and actions - no one else.

Suggest 10 hours per week at nursing home.

;0)