Thanks for posting. This doesn't make much sense to me either.
Apologies if I've missed a thread somewhere but was the drivers defense that he hadn't seen Eilid at all? Or that he had seen her but the "tap" was unavoidable for other reasons?
Either way, the verdit seems bizarre. I'm not sure you'd even get away with these defences on a ski slope let alone London's Highways. Surely if he hasn't seen her he's negligent - or if he has and can't avoid contact he's driving wrecklessly?
Thanks for posting. This doesn't make much sense to me either.
Apologies if I've missed a thread somewhere but was the drivers defense that he hadn't seen Eilid at all? Or that he had seen her but the "tap" was unavoidable for other reasons?
Either way, the verdit seems bizarre. I'm not sure you'd even get away with these defences on a ski slope let alone London's Highways. Surely if he hasn't seen her he's negligent - or if he has and can't avoid contact he's driving wrecklessly?