Traffic victim's mother finds court sentence 'disgraceful'

J.Camilleri

Dec 28th 2009, 15:18

@ raymond sammut ... jekk int minitx kapaci taqra bil-malti jew tisthi tghid li int malti affarik ... pero titkellimx ingenerali ghax il-maggoranza li taqra l-kummenti huma kwazi tista tghid kollha maltin u kapaci jaqraw u jiktbuh u JIFMUH !

M.Scicluna

Dec 27th 2009, 11:10

"He said that, at one point, “suddenly I felt something hit the front of the car and the windscreen turned white and I pressed the brake...” and suddenly two children were killed. It is true that Mr. Cutajar has to live with this but so do the mothers of the children. I find the court sentence disgraceful too.

Raymond Sammut

Dec 26th 2009, 23:51

@ Buhagiar M ━Mn'Alla li l-kummenti tiegħek huma kollha bil-Malti. Biss-saħħa t'hekk ma fehmek ħadd.

@ Mark Zerafa ━Your points regarding Rue D'Argens, "push-chairs", etc only show that pedestrians don't have proper and safe access to footpaths. An example was highlighted recently in The Times in an article showing the lack of ramp-access which people who need to use wheelchairs depend on.

Malta's road network is ad-hoc; it wasn't planned in the same way networks were planned in major cities. This is something that motorists have to keep in mind. Traffic authorities in Malta also need to take this into consideration when setting traffic rules. For example, speed-limits should never be more than 50kmh. Malta is too small to have anything higher.

My view is that the Maltese government is practically "selling" the road network to raise revenue. ━｛more roads✚higher speed limits｝➜｛more cars✚more licenses｝═ higher revenue.

But this is coming at the expense of the pedestrian with more injuries and deaths on a weekly basis. Ultimately the onus rests with motorists who are buying, and sometimes abusing, what the government is selling.

Buhagiar M

Dec 26th 2009, 20:03

Anke tabelli hziena ghandna mwahhlin, jekk tara t-tabelli li hemm qabel ir-roundabout tal-Mosta fejn hemm il-Monument tal-Missjunarji, it-tabelli bluni tar-roundabout huma mghamulin ghal-karozzi LHD u allahares timxi maghhom ghax tispicca ddur ir-roundabout bil-kontra.

Mark Zerafa

Dec 26th 2009, 17:52

Re inconsiderate pedestrians:

Msida police Station - people insist on crossing the road by Bathline instead of walking about 15 metres up to the pedestrian crossing. You are turning into Rue D'Argens, and you find a pedestrian bang in front of you. This is just a case in point.

How many times have you encountered families with pushchairs on the street when there is a perfectly adequate pavement?

Re 80 kph on a bypass.. No pedestrians are to be expected, or we would have traffic lights like in B'Kara bypass. You can cross at the MFSA lights, or the underpass further down.

But then I guess Mr Sammut might be one of the few people happy with the local public transport system, or worse still, one of those drivers potting along at 30 kph on the fast lane...

Driving in the UK is easier, because the road signage is good, the roads well-maintained, and pedestrians stay on the pavement and only cross where they're expected to. And everyone feels safer, even at 100 kph!

But in Malta, the motorist is expected to do everything, from solving the deficit through the onerous road licenses, to taking the blame for anything!

Raymond Sammut

Dec 25th 2009, 11:55

@ Mark Zerafa

❝The speed limit on the bypass is a measly 80kph...❞ ―This bypass is just 2km long. How do you justify 80kph to be "measly"? Even at 50kph it would take well under 3mins to cover. And why 80kph when at the same time no adequate pedestrian crossings have been provided by the traffic authorities?

❝...pedestrians cross anywhere, even five metres away from the nearest zebra crossing,...❞ ―It has been shown here on the Times, time and time again, that Zebra Crossings on Malta's road network are nothing less than death traps. Pedestrians have no choice but to avoid Zebra Crossings.

❝Drivers in Malta have to face incredible odds....❞ ―Drivers in Malta are like everywhere else in the world. They are in charge of their motor vehicle. The onus is on them to give the benefit of the doubt to the pedestrian. The "incredible odds" are faced by the pedestrians because they are the ones who are vulnerable when a collision occurs.

There is no witch-hunt Mr Zerafa. There are "drivers" who over-speed and don't keep a proper lookout. It's a 2-year sentence, and the public needs to know why it was suspended.

Mark Zerafa

Dec 25th 2009, 09:38

As usual, all the blame goes on the motorist. If you're driving on a bypass at night, do you expect a bunch of kids to cross the road? I've had a lucky near miss when a kid simply crossed the road straight in front of me from between two parked cars.

The speed limit on the bypass is a measly 80kph... measly because its a bypass, not an urban road. If someone wants to cross the bypass, there are lights at MFSA, or you can simply walk down to the Zammit Nurseries underpass. Or else you cross very carefuly, at your own risk. But in a country where pedestrians cross anywhere, even five metres away from the nearest zebra crossing, it's a way of life.

Drivers in Malta have to face incredible odds. Thoughtless pedestrians, as well as potholes, top my list.

Nobody has spared a thought for the driver's anguish at the tragic end of what was probably badly planned bravado by a group of youths. Should we now have a witchunt and make him look like a serial killer?

The court's decision seems justified. It was an accident.

Raymond Sammut

Dec 25th 2009, 02:18

@ Buhagiar M

As I understand, at the time when this incident occurred, the speed limit on this by-pass was 70K. At this speed the driver should be able to spot a pedestrian and have time to reduce speed. 70K is not arbitrary. It has technical reasons behind it.

In this particular case, the driver also had a car in front, and this alone was enough reason to reduce speed. As a general rule, drivers on a by-pass are required to stay in the inner-lane and use the outer-lane only when they need to overtake. The driver in question was required to move to the inner lane —the same as the car in front— in order to ensure that he stayed within the speed limit. Only if the car in front dropped below the speed limit, the car in question should then have used the outer lane. This is the international convention when using a by-pass.

Your remarks in regard to road design safety flaws are typical in Malta's road network. This is the reason why several Times readers have suggested that the minister appoints a panel of engineering experts to study the network and make recommendations.

Buhagiar M

Dec 24th 2009, 19:18

Din turi kif skond artiklu tat-times ghadu ma sar xejn biex dawn ic-cittadini Maltin ikunu jistghu jaqsmu t-triq b'mohhom mistrieh. Jista jkun hemm anzjani joqghodu fuq dik in-naha li ma jifilhux jigru girja ghas-cente strip. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091218/local/donor-card-wish-of-bypass-victim

Buhagiar M

Dec 24th 2009, 19:07

Waqt li naqbel mieghek li b' 45km/h tista tikkontrolla izjed u tevita bniedem. Pero dan il-kaz ma garax fi triq go r-rahal, hawnhekk wiehed qieghed go by-pass, li bil-kamera kif inhi tippermetti li bniedem isuq bin-national speed limit, (hekk tfisser it-tabella li hemm qabel il-kameras) li hu speed li jiswa l-hajjiet tan-nies. Hemm ukoll is-sigar fin-nofs li jghattu il-vista tad-drivers, specjalment waqt li qeghed jidlam jekk bniedem qieghed fiha biex jaqsam. Jien li jiddispjacini hafna ghal dawn iz-zaghzagh, kieku llum qeghed igawdu l-Milied mal-familji bhalna li qeghed nikkumentaw, ghalhekk ktibt li jmissu jsir xi haga aktar safe ghan-nies li joqghodu f'dik il-parti tat-triq mhux qaghdu jwedughhom biss, ghax bil-kameras ma solvejna xejn hlief li ngabru l-flus. L-istess post ikrah qieghed qabel il-flyover fejn emm il-hwienet tal-appliences, issib min jaqsamlek minn wara l-karozzi jew jaqbez il-hadid tas-centre strip. Anke l'fuq mir-roundabout tat-Tank tal-Gass ukoll hemm problema biex persuna taqsam it-triq.

Raymond Sammut

Dec 24th 2009, 05:38

@ Buhagiar M —"...45km/h xorta tista' tibgħatu..."

It has been mentioned a number of times on this board. I think it's worth repeating. A lower speed allows the driver more time to see pedestrians and longer braking distance. The point is to avoid collision in the first place. Traffic experts warn that avoidance is more possible at lower speeds.

What seems to have happened here is that the girls saw coming only one car, not two, on the outer lane. That's when they may have decided to cross instead of waiting for the car to go past. Tragically the car at the front changed lanes, leaving the girls stranded at the centre of the outer lane. This left them with no time to deal with the second car which had been hidden and coming down on the outer lane at a much higher speed. This will have been a likely scenario on the basis of what was presented in court.

Had he not been speeding, he would have had time to see them (beep his horn if needed) and slow down a bit. This might have given the girls time to turn back and realise their misjudgment.

Buhagiar M

Dec 23rd 2009, 20:19

Kulhadd nahseb jiddispjacih ghall-hajjiet li intilfu, biss povri familji li joqghodu fuq dik in-naha tat-triq ma ghandhom l-ebda access minn fejn jaqsmu, avolja jekk niftakar tajjeb kien sar xi diskors wara dan l-accident dwar xi sub way jew fly over bhal tal-Marsa. S'issa speed camera biss saret li ma ssolvi xejn ghax jekk vettura tolqot bniedem 45km/h xorta tista tibghatu fejn il-Mulej. Il-messagg wara dan kollu hu li jaqbel issir xi haga hemmek minn fejn jaqsmu n-nies. l-istess problema hemm ftit qabel il-flyover Triq il-kanun fejn nies jaqsmu billi jaqbzu l-barrikadi ta nofs it-triq, minn jaf x'jigri jekk xi hadd jitfixkel fihom.

Nitolbu ghall-familjari tal-vittmi u ghall-vittmi.

Raymond Sammut

Dec 14th 2009, 12:19

@ T Schembri --"Before you comment again try to read and understand the above article."

Let me quote it to you, T Schembri, since you have decided to omit what the Magistrate said: "...the accident, even if not exclusively for such reasons, happened because of the speed the accused was driving at and the fact that he was not keeping a proper look out."(The Magistrate)

That's negligent driving according to the Magistrate's statement.

The fact that an accused is acquitted in court does not mean that he did not commit the offense. The accused was driving negligently --speeding and not keeping a proper look out-- and hence the Magistrate gave a two-year sentence. The fact that the Magistrate also granted acquittal simply means that the sentence is lower than it would have been without acquittal being granted.

The cruel irony here is that the Magistrate gave benefit of the doubt to the driver by granting acquittal. The driver never gave benefit of the doubt to the two girls trying to cross the road.

I have no intention of "arguing" with someone like you, T Schembri. Please note that this driver didn't just "ruin" someone's life.

T Schembri

Dec 14th 2009, 10:41

@Raymond Sammut

According to the above article -
" was found guilty of causing the girls’ death by not keeping “a proper look out” and exceeding the speed limit. He was acquitted of negligent driving." also... later at the end of the article "However, the court ruled he was not driving negligently."

Human life is worth more then "Something" BUT it is not fair to ruin another person's life (accused) based on their mistakes (Victims).

We can keep on arguing till the end of days. But the facts are facts. Before you comment again try to read and understand the above article.

N. Bonello

Dec 14th 2009, 00:17

“suddenly I felt something hit the front of the car and the windscreen turned white and I pressed the brake...”

I think that most people driving that road at 60/70 (even in pitch darkness) would have 'noticed' that there was something - even a rat crossing the road.

francesca abela

Dec 14th 2009, 00:12

Antoine Vella, speed was a determining factor yes, but it does not mean the girls were not taking a risk. Many times pedestrians do not follow road safety rules.

Kevin Zammit

Dec 14th 2009, 00:04

@E Vella
hitting someone at 70 is one thing 35 is another. Since you were driving through places where there were parked cars then it was most probably one of 90% of Maltas roads busy and shared by people and cars. You know someone could just cross the road from behind a parked car. then you should be driving slowly. This gives an individual a chance of survival. Apparantly though the Maltese courts do not take this into consideration which to me means that if you killed the person you say you hit you are one of those that should have been sentenced more harshly.

So in the news today 4 injured people ... 2 dead in their car ... tell me the guy in the 407 was not overspeeding? Went over a centre strip and still hit the other cars with such speed he killed the ocupants!

driving like maniacs without regard to anything ... you know that. Malta's "motorway" ... what a joke, it's barely 2 km ... why do you have to drive at 70 let alone 80? Give yourself time to brake and give a chance to others in case of an accident.

Raymond Sammut

Dec 13th 2009, 23:01

@ T Schembri --

(1) "The driver WASNT driving negligently." This is contrary to what the Magistrate said. Are you better than the Magistrate, T Schembri?

(2) "Though the accused WAS driving over the legal speed limit." The question is by how much. Enough to see something white on his windscreen instead of seeing two girls on the road.

What makes you think that a suspended sentence was "Fair"? Human life is worth something, not nothing. Human life, in fact, is everything. There is no deterrence in a suspended sentence. Drivers on Malta's road network will go on thinking that it's OK to speed. If the pedestrian gets killed it's their fault because they made a "mistake". That's a deplorable and a totally unacceptable attitude.

We are no kings just because we are sitting behind the steering wheel. A motor vehicle is a lethal weapon. The pedestrian is vulnerable and highly prone to error. The responsibility is totally with us driving to go it slow and to look at what's in front. The slower we go the more visibility we allow ourselves. This driver went fast enough so as to afford himself no visibility whatsoever.

T Schembri

Dec 13th 2009, 20:51

@Raymond Sammut and whoever thinks it was cause of over speeding.

Lets tell the rest of the world to lower their speed limits on their motorways/ highways. Lets not be ridiculous. That particular road is a Bypass. You dont expect anyone to be crossing. Unfortunately the accident costed two lives, But we all must admit that one shouldnt be crossing such roads in daylight, let alone during the night.

50Km/hr might have and might not have affected the accident. Maybe if one of the girls had her shoe laces undone, maybe she would have stopped to do them and the car would have drove by. Lets keep our assumptions down to the REAL facts. This is a bypass. The driver WASNT driving negligently. Though the accused WAS driving over the legal speed limit. These are the facts. I think a suspended sentence was very Fair. At the end of the day, when someone overspeeds all he gets is a speeding ticket. Someone was crossing in a road where he shouldnt have.

Leonard Perkins

Dec 13th 2009, 20:22

@ Marco Lia
The comment you made is nothing but sick!!! Shouldnt of been there so know there is a highway code informing pedestrians of where and where they cannot walk!!!

Two young girls lost their lives in a tragic accident and god knows what pain they went through to met that end.

By the way being Maltese you should know that the speed limit was 70kph back then, obviously you drive without due care and attention as well.

My sincere condolences and thoughts are with the families, again no justice.

Antoine Vella

Dec 13th 2009, 19:07

Speed was a determining factor in this tragedy; something that all those ranting against speed cameras would do well to remember.

joseph schembri

Dec 13th 2009, 14:08

For sure, speed kills. In my opinion, we still think that once we got your driving licence, we think that we know how to drive. When we are driving we have to take all the necessary precautions, immaterial of the speed limits. The faster you go, the more you have to take precautions. I am sure that after an accident you cannot just say it was not my fault. You have to carry it with you all your life.

Raymond Sammut

Dec 13th 2009, 11:55

@ E Compagno -- "...at 50kmh would still have most probably killed them" At 50K he would have been able to see them on the road. Instead he saw something white on the windscreen. There is a very big difference between two girls standing on the road and something white on the windscreen. The first means you are going at a slow speed -- just like the car moving to the inner lane, and which didn't hit the girls. The second means you are going at a very high speed -- which is illegal.

@ Larissa Portelli -- "He was not doing anything against the law." He broke the the law. That's why the judge gave him a 2-year sentence. The question here is why was the sentence suspended for four years? This is what's adding so much hurt to the bereaved. It also leaves the rest of us wondering when in Malta is there going to be an effective deterrent to stop drivers breaking the law by speeding on the road network.

The network is there to be shared by everyone, and we are all obliged to care for the other person and give benefit of doubt.

Marco Lia

Dec 13th 2009, 11:26

yes, i'm sure the mother is suffering a lot however.... what where the two girls doing in that road, at that time ?

also, the speed limit there is 80km/h and if the girls just 'jumped' out in front of him that I'm sorry to say, but the driver is not at fault at all.

at that time, in that road...how do you expect that all of a sudden 2 girls jump in front of your car out of nowhere ? if they where my children i would be absolutely flipping at that sentence, but let's face it.... they shouldn't have been there. it's a bypass not a pedonal zone.

E Compagno

Dec 13th 2009, 10:59

Raymond Sammut, so you are saying that another car was infront of the driver, before this car moved, infront of the driver's line of vision, to the left.. the side I am assuming the pedestrians were on.

More reason to miss noticing the pedestrians.

No matter how you spin it, or how 'outrageously false' you think my argument is, a) they shouldn't have been crossing that road, b) no driver drives down it expecting to face crossing pedestrians, and c) being hit head on at 50 kmh would still have most probably killed them.


Fact is, if I wanted to cross a motorway, I, as a pedestrian, am aware and should expect cars driving at certain speeds. If I should choose to cross the road, then I do so fully aware of the cars coming my way. I would probably dash out to make it to the other side in time, aware I'm taking a chance that could cost me my life. If you want to call that suicide, then that's up to you. But I tend to disagree. Or should I say, I find it to be an 'outrageously false argument'. lol.

Larissa Portelli

Dec 13th 2009, 02:24

Come on leave the man alone! He was driving during the night in a bypass where national speed limit applies.He was not doing anything against the law. 17 year old is not young, I think she knew the basic steps before crossing a road! wait...a bypass!! If it was dark do you pretend that the driver can see pedestrians if not wearing any fluorescent jackets or something?? Why are cat's eyes and reflecting aids set up then? To help the driver drive during night time. So possibly no one might have ever saw these girls trying to cross the road. This could have happened to anyone driving at that moment! I think the court sentence is plausible. And by the way I cannot imagine how hard must it be for this man to have accidentally killed 2 girls. I am sure his mind will never be in peace for this tragic accident.
Of course R.I.P girls.

Raymond Sammut

Dec 12th 2009, 22:58

@ E Compagno --"If I go to Aldo Moro in Marsa right now and step infront of a moving vehicle, chances are it's going to hit me. It's not rocket science." Your argument is once more outrageously false. This time it's even more outrageous because you are no longer talking about road accidents but about a way of committing suicide.

There is nothing to suggest that these two girls committed suicide. The driver giving evidence in court didn't say he saw the two girls "stepping in front of [his] moving vehicle". The driver never even saw them on the road. He only saw something on the windscreen which made it turn white. This shows how fast he was going. These were two human beings on feet and not two birds on wings flying straight into the windscreen.

Please keep in mind that there was a second car involved. At one stage, this car was in front of the driver before moving to the inner lane. This second car was doing the right thing. Moving slower and choosing the inner lane. But for the girls it did the wrong thing. It opened the outer lane for the faster car.

K Glanville

Dec 12th 2009, 21:20

Cases like these are mostly due to negligent pedestrians. I am hurt to say these words, when thinking of the poor victims, but lets face it.....There are very few occasions in which a pedestrian is hit by an oncoming car due to a negligent driver. If this car was fast approaching (which might be the case), the pedestrians should have had a better lookout and simply wait until the car passes by, rather than crossing the road risking their lives. All of us know mriehel by-pass. The area in which the accident happened, is quite a stretch of a road with good visuals for driver and also pedestrians. Cars don`t stop instantly. When a driver sees a pedestrian infront of him crossing the road, there is always other further distance the car needs to stop. This is logical physics and as such does not mean that there wasn`t a proper look out. Anyhow, if the guy said he simply felt the bump and saw the windscreen turn white, then i think he must have been a bit more cautious of what was ahead of him. Braking after the collision, can indicate some lack of attention.

E Compagno

Dec 12th 2009, 21:10

Raymond Sammut, do you drive? Have you ever driven down that bypass? It's a long slightly curved, but mostly straight wide road. How many pedestrians have you come across trying to cross it? In my 13 years of driving, I have never come across one so far, thank god! So, it's more a question of expectations. Should one expect 2 kids to suddenly run across the road? No matter how you put it, the answer is no.

Your argument is based on the assumption that the driver would see them cross. My argument is based on the fact that no one expects pedestrians to cross, therefore it is easy to not see two dark figures sprint infront of your car - because one is more focused on the traffic infront of them than what ever is coming from the sides.. If I go to Aldo Moro in Marsa right now and step infront of a moving vehicle, chances are it's going to hit me. It's not rocket science.

In which case, an impact of 50 kmh, instead of 70 kmh would have still resulted in grieveous injury and very possible death. Which was my initial point.

Raymond Sammut

Dec 12th 2009, 20:09

@ E Compagno --"...the driver could have been doing 50kmh. If he did not see them before they hit his car, it would have hardly made a difference." This is an outrageously false argument.

If the driver was moving at 50kmh instead of moving at a higher speed, he would have had more time to see pedestrians crossing the road. The fact that "suddenly I felt something hit the front of the car and the windscreen turned white and I pressed the brake...” means that he was moving too fast. He was not moving slow enough to compensate for the fact that it was "dark".

Also, the stopping distance is proportional to the square of the speed. For example, if the speed is doubled, the stopping distance needed would be four times as much; if tripled, nine times as much; and so on.

In this case, he was moving so fast that he didn't even get to see the pedestrians before applying the brakes. Had he been going slower, he would have had time to see them early enough and apply the brakes before reaching them, and a slower speed would have afforded more stopping distance.

M Vella

Dec 12th 2009, 18:54

I totally agree with E Compagno. Those girls could have caused the driver's life and we need to think about this possibility before totally condemning the driver. Young people tend to be risk-takers and rarely think of how they could get hurt or hurt others. Also, let's face it, that by-pass invited drivers to overspeed. Knowing this, the girls were taking a huge risk and sadly it turned out to be a fatal one.

Sharon O'Neill

Dec 12th 2009, 10:56

with him if i was not called in to work that day due two ppl calling in sick. Is it destiny ? who knows, but its something i will carry with me all my life. There is nowone to blame in reality because things do happen, nowone knows when its our time and how we will leave so thats why we must make out the best of us while we're here. I am sure that the driver did not do this intentionally and he was not lucky enough to stop on time during his drive for some reason, i was not there so i can not say,on the other hand its not the mother to blame either, have you all forgot your teenage times ? they all want their own freedom and independence so pls stop judging and understand that danger is everyday increasing with it is also deaths, so please people be carefull when you are on the roads and hopefully God willing nowone would be the cause for their own destruction and for others around them, God bless you all and be with you and hopefully this case closed will bring peace at heart.

Sharon O'Neill

Dec 12th 2009, 10:48

I am sorry for the loss of the parents, I am not a parent myself but I understand the bonding that there is between a family, and when there is a loss it can never be replaced, its always at someone's life and someone's cost to try and avoid traffic accidents after things happen, ts life unfortunatley and nowone knows when, where and how is someone leaving their life on earth to continue their jurney in the afterlife. For the driver I really would not want to be in his place, I do not know him but i do believe that he wouldnt even wish he killed his worst enemy immagine two innocent people. I believe nowone is to blame, not even the mother as you guys know we all been teenangers and we all wanted our own independence and freedom, the what if's or she should have done this or that is really unnapropiate and stupid to say because I lost a dear friend myself with a car accident and it was not his fault either, i miss him every single day as he was like a brother to me, and that day I should have been there

Michael Andrews

Dec 12th 2009, 07:29

I agree with alot of people here in saying the girls are just at fault as the guy is.
The girls should never have been crossing that road in the first place and if the mother knew they were going to visit a sick friend,she should have taken them there herself.
Its a sad loss of life and the mothers response is natural i guess but unfortunately in this case the driver was not to blame 100%.... in my humble opinion.
Whether they are 11 or 21 parents need to be responsible for their children and know what they are doing.

A. Borg

Dec 12th 2009, 01:23

Jien li naf li x-xufier personali nista niggarantilkhom li kien ikun izjed kuntent li Alla hadu wkoll dakinhar tal-accident.Hajtu u hajjet il-familja tieghu spiccat ghall-dejjem minn dakinhar tal-accident. Il-futur sabih li kellu quddiemu sparixxa minn dakinhar ghax hajtu tbidlet totalment. Il-kundanna ga hadha u se jkollu jibqa jgorrha ghall-dejjem.

E Compagno

Dec 11th 2009, 22:19

I have two daughters and I don't know how i'd feel if someone ran them over and killed them, so I'm trying very hard to be fair and unbiased towards the victims in my opinion of this accident.

First, the driver could have been doing 50 kmh. If he did not see them before they hit his car, it would have hardly made a difference.

Secondly, that road is no road to be crossing. I never drive down it and expect pedestrians to cross. So although the loss of life is terrible, and i completely sympathise, unfortunately, if I had to be completely fair, these girls could have even cost the driver HIS life. What if he saw them, swerved and hit a lampost? Does no one realise that they could have potentially put drivers at risk?

Also judging from the length of the road, the pedestrian can easily see an approaching car with lights from a distance. So why cross? Youngsters tend to think.. 'nah, will never happen to me!'

Now consider: all three were young.
It's a shame.. but that road is a car's domain. Not a child's. Ask yourselves. Would YOU let your kids cross it?

E Vella

Dec 11th 2009, 22:10

@ Kevin Zammit

i was a victim myself of an accident. i was driving and i ran into a man who decided to go in the middle of the road from behind a truck during the night. i was accused of not having a proper look out. SAME REASON as this driver.

what should a driver do if someone crosses the road from behind a trick or a tree?? (without checking if a car is coming or not) what about the look out of the people crossing the road??

please let's be realistic. don't talk too much unless you are a driver that a passer-by had caused you such an accident and you have no fault at all like it happened to myself.

thank god i was only fined a few euros (since i was not guilty at all). However this guy has a Eur4,000 fine becuase he was unlucky of killing them in a road that you drive at more than 60km/hr.

Charles Alamango

Dec 11th 2009, 21:59

First of all my deep regrets to all involved, as everyone is a victim. What I'd like to comment is that I hope the authorities checked the young's man mobile phone as this case seems to be a pure case of distraction. The area is well lit so one can't but attribute some guilt to the driver as the court so decided. In most countries the perpetrator's mobile phone is immediately checked for obvious reasons.

Deo Catania

Dec 11th 2009, 21:53

Ghal min qed iparla fil-vojt bhas-soltu....tafu li ftit ilu gie mtajjar anzjan fit-triq li minn h'Attard tati ghal-Ta' Qali? HADD ma semma xejn!!!! Zommu f'mohhkom qabel tlabalbu li mhux kull triq hi bhal ojra, fejn gara l-incident ta' hal Qormi mhix triq li tistenna li jaqsmu n-nies minnha u anke jekk karozza tkun ezatt ma' l-ispeed limit ta' 70km/h m'hemm ebda garanzija li l-vitma ma tmutx. Ix-xuffier seta kien min kien, seta kien patpitu minnkom imma l-aqwa li nizzattu. F'dan l-incident kelna 2 vitmi li tilfu hajjithom u vitma iehor li se jibqa bir-rimors ghal dak li gara. Viva l-insara jew ahjar l-oqbra mbajda.

ABriffa

Dec 11th 2009, 21:43

The life of these two young girls is over, whilst the life of this man is ruined.....why do we people have to continue judging and commenting and criticising and what have you????

All the families concerned have enough to deal with, why do we have to cause more heart ache with our comments?

c. camilleri

Dec 11th 2009, 20:22

When fatal accidents happen there are always two or three elements involved. Over speeding is the main one often accompanied by recklessness and alcohol. If drivers involved in such accidents drive at normal speed the damage would not be fatal. Many countries, the UK one of them, are contemplating to treat death caused by reckless driving as homicide. Anyhow wonders never cease coming form our courts.

George Debono

Dec 11th 2009, 20:03

Somethin different............

Another odd thing that really sticks out - so many of the people who made comments in this and similar blogs. are trying ever so hard to excuse the driver. Even worse, the tragic accident in which CliffMicallef - an experienced cyclist who was riding according to the law - was killed by a vehicle unleashed a torrent of anti-cycling sentiment. Almost everybody who commented kept repeating that cyclists are a hazard, cycliists contravene traffic regulations &c &c &c. In fact, some correspondents even said that bikes should be forbidden on our streets - My guess is that, apart from wanting to have the road to themselves, they want to avoid having to drive more carefully in the presence of bikes...

The trouble is that parents are afraid to let youngsters use a bicycle because of the danger from motorists. So our youngsters are conditioned to being driven around in a car from an early age and then get a license and drive with no road experience because the adolescent bicycle-phase (normal in other countries I've lived in) is skipped. This contributes not only to our high accident rate but also to obesity, both in children and adults

George Debono

Dec 11th 2009, 19:47

I don't have any statistics to go by, but my impression is that young drivers are almost invariably responsible for such tragic accidents.

This begs the question: is there something wrong with our licensing system?

I think there is. For instance in Canada aspiring drivers have to go through a series of stages of 1 - 2 years until a full driving license is obtained after some 5 years:
(1) LEARNER Permit (can only drive accompanied by a fully licensed driver; may NOT drink alcohol if driving - ie maintain ZERO alcohol blood concentration; must display a learner plate; may not drive between 12AM-5AM.) This is followed by
(2) NOVICE Permit (may not drink alcohol if driving - ie maintain ZERO alcohol blood-concentration; may only carry one passenger Followed by

(3) PROBATIONARY Driver (may not drink alcohol if driving - ie maintain ZERO alcohol blood-concentration)

(4) FULL LICENSE is awarded after 1,2,3, have elapsed. If there is an accident or alcohol infringement - driver goes back to (1)

A good idea is also to only allow cars below, say, 1,100 cc cpacity until 25 years.

I am sure this would cut down such horrific accidents - and drink-driving. .

G

JP Attard

Dec 11th 2009, 17:41

While it is understandable that the parents of the young girls are angry at this decision, one must also consider what the boy has gone through these years. I am a very cautious driver and everyday, because of negligent pedestrians, I run the risk of ruining my life. It is not the prison that makes justice. Killing two people , even if involuntary is something that I cannot imagine living with. And the driver should be helped in these circumstances as well. I'm sorry, but I am with the driver in this case because Mriehel bypass is a 'highway' for Malta where although the speed limit is 80, the average speed used, is of 100 kilometres per hour, and the two young girls were negligent in their behaviour. In fact the driver was not found negligent in his actions. I suggest introducing fines to pedestrians as well because it is becoming extremely difficult to drive in our roads. I also agree that severe punishments must be given to drivers that cause accidents negligently, but this was not the case

David Schiavone

Dec 11th 2009, 17:40

@All - I agree that pedestrians should be more careful when they are crossing and they should also be patient to let the cars pass by until they step down on the road. A case in point which happened to me, while I was driving in the direction to the airport terminal carriage way near the roundabout I saw a man who was going to cross and I slowed down in order to make way for him to cross and he waved so that I can keep on going, upon just passing by him he just stepped down from the pavement which could have easily ended up in a minor accident. Unfortunately these youths where killed, and personally I know persons who saw the mentioned car involved in the accident was badly damaged which clearly indicates that the driver was driving at irregular speeds. After that accident thanks god they have installed Speed Cameras which serve as a Watch-Policemen to prohibit drivers from speeding. Well just as a lesson, Speed is Nice and gives you Joy however its illegal and dangerous and it can cost lives... Cars & Road Furniture are repaired but lost lives are not restored..enough said.

john fenech

Dec 11th 2009, 17:09

Those of you who are apportioning blame might be right. On the other hand being 50%, right does not avoid accidents. If a pedestrian is run over the best is slight injury the worst two meters under, while the vehicle the worst a couple of weeks at the panel beater! So better be 100% right all the time, save yourself and others unnecessary grief! We, the drivers have to be vigilant, courteous and above all responsible to observe all the traffic regulations at all times.

I have observed on several occasions that right of way, stop signs, and traffic crossings are amongst the regulations which are ignored by a good percentage of the drivers while next on the list is the non signalling for lane change. Or else signal and lane change are performed at the same time!

I had suggested on other occasions that at least, the learning driving course should include defensive driving, although it should be compulsory to all drivers, especially to the commercial and government vehicle drivers. While the traffic wardens, should have their duties orientated towards road safety rather than the present cash revenue role!

Marcelline Micallef

Dec 11th 2009, 16:54

@ Eric Soames

Mr Soames,

For your information, In 1998, there were no pelican lights when my sister crossed. They were installed some time after the accident.........typical of our country. First we need a fatality to do something concrete, in this case install pelican lights. Great ey???????

C Farrugia

Dec 11th 2009, 15:51

I can only just imagine the horrid life the parents of these two girls are living. What could feel worse than losing your child? Yet...I see this as a sad tragic accident with more than two victims. I am 100 per cent sure that the person behind the wheel would have done anything to avoid hitting the girls ...but alas.... we cannot reverse what happened. I for one, would be terrified of having to cross that road whether in daylight or at night. The fault is that we build bypasses and major roads, for the CARS, without thinking that there are people on each side of it!! Something as simple as an overpass would have prevented this tragic story. PLEASE let's not have a reapeat, think of PEDESTRIANS when building major roads.

Note: I drive as well and sometimes even streetlights are a hazard at night. Their reflection on the windscreen totally blocks out a person crossing, and you would only notice it when you're quite close, with the God forbid possibility of it being too late to stop..........

J Farrugia

Dec 11th 2009, 15:37

@ John Pisani - By reporting accidents doesn't mean you know exactly what happened. The driver can never abscond from HIS RESPONSIBILITY to keep a proper look out for any accidental things which might occur while he is driving. Eg. A cat or a dog or a drunkard. It is the drivers' responsibility, which you are trying to disown from the culprit, to drive carefully, responsibly and in a manner which is not detrimental to third parties. As the magistrate said the driver was not responsible enough in keeping a clear view of the road, even given the darkness of the place. The vehicle's headlamps could have been spot on the victims. Yes I believe there was gross negligence on the driver's part.

S Sciberras

Dec 11th 2009, 15:22

While I appreciate the mother feelings and the driver was found to be partly at fault, no one should cross a by-pass especially at night.

I recall another accident a few years ago when 2 foreign students decided to walk down from Tal-Qroqq to Sliema Road via Mikiel Anton Vassalli and a guy emerging from the tunnels ran over them.

Pedestrians should be careful in the roads as well as they may be a danger to themselves and others. There are a lot of law abiding drivers who have had a lot of near misses because of the carelessness of others.

Ramon Casha

Dec 11th 2009, 15:14

@Francis Saliba: He was acquitted of negligent driving. I don't know anything about this case beyond what the report says, but based on that, the driver was neither "arrogantly careless" nor "criminally careless".

James Vella Clark

Dec 11th 2009, 15:11

Who said this driver was careless? Can't drivers even feel safe driving on a major arterial road at a decent speed limit without expecting that at any second, someone irresponsible is going to cross? This is one of Malta's 'motorways'. Why is it that whatever happens, it always seems to be the motorist's fault? The spot where this accident happened is a few metres before the bridge next to the new Joinwell showroom. Anyone crossing this road can easily walk a few metres down and crossed from near the roundabout, from underneath the bridge. If as a pedestrian, i choose to cross from such a spot, then i'm responsible for whatever happens. It's not fair to blame motorists even when pedestrians are irresponsible. Isn't it possible that you cross a road like that without checking if any car is coming? So now, if i'm driving on a by-pass at 70kph and i hit an irresponsible person who suddenly crosses the road without checking, am i a careless irresponsible driver to blame? I sympathise with the girls' families but my biggest sympathy goes for the young motorist whose life has been severly marked, possibly by the girls' irresponsible crossing.

Michael Pace

Dec 11th 2009, 15:10

It's so easy for drivers to say children shouldn't be crossing the bypass! Cars are the lords of the world. All our roads are built without caring for the fact that we live in a country chockfull of people, who need to get from one place to another, and have the right to do it on foot.
I was staying at Hamrun and had to go to the Maltapost head office. It's just a 15 minute walk. But it's next to impossible to get there from the Hamrun side on foot! Another time I was at Rahal Gdid and wanted to walk to Hamrun. It's really scary! That's why people overuse cars. That's why obesity increases, since people find it difficult to walk, which is the second healthiest way to move about (the first is cycling).
Let's hope these tragedies, which keep on happening, at last make people in power find a way to ease the lot of walkers, whether in our towns or in the countryside. And let's hope drivers don't think they don't need to "keep... a proper look out".

Raymond Sammut

Dec 11th 2009, 14:41

Please note that the sentence was "a two-year jail term suspended for four years". This means that -- as I understand -- if the driver committed an offense (any offense) during the four year period, the two-year jail term would immediately apply retrospectively.

One has to ask here what criteria is the judge (or magistrate) using when suspending a sentence (or not revoking a license)? The Criminal Code quoted by Joe Fenech does not specify whether the sentence should be suspended. "Liability" means that the decision is left entirely at the discretion of the judge. But how well is the judge informed?

The Criminal Code exists at a high level of the justice system, while a decision must be based on good information on what is really happening on the ground. For this reason the Law Courts, along with the Criminal Code, require guidelines from the Legislature. These guidelines are based on statistical evidence that show whether a jail-term (or revoking a license) would serve as a deterrent. Do such guidelines exist? To me it seems that judges and magistrates in general are not adequately informed on the reality that exists on the road network.

K Farrugia

Dec 11th 2009, 14:34

A suspended jail sentence and a fine of €4,000 will not be much of a hindrance in the daily life of this, yes let's admit it, unfortunate driver. At least his driving licence should be suspended for a couple of years so that he would at least be negatively affected and his life made a bit more difficult, or otherwise serve a year in prison and the other three years suspended, ..... after all the families of the two victims will have to live with this tragic and horrific loss for the rest of their days. And the driver qisu qatt ma gara xejn and goes on happy go lucky with his normal life. . . . I don't see any justice in this case.

M.C.Calleja

Dec 11th 2009, 14:05

I think it is really horrible how in this time, people are getting careless more than ever in their driving and we are talking about two young girls, two fresh lifes that lost their opportunity and chance to have a life like each of us by the hands of a young man and his driving.
Justice should be really done. What if they were your kids?.

Galea. L

Dec 11th 2009, 14:03

joseph farrugia
An excellent suggestion.
Re the judgment and the case, first of all I am sorry for the tragedy and can understand the mother's frustration. However, sending the person to prison will not bring her daughter back and this was not premeditated murder. I have seen countless pedestrians who are grown ups and who should know better who without looking either way just step on the road and cross.
The bypass speed is 80kmh so drivers have every right to drive at maximum speed but not exceeding the maximum limit. Drivers have priority.
The girls were crossing at 9.15 in the evening.
If someone suddenly appears on the road you cannot just brake.
If I remember correctly, if you are driving at 80kmh (50mph) from the moment you apply the brake to stopping you will travel 50 metres. This is besides the reaction time from when you see a person and apply the brake.
This is a sad accident and if anyone should be sued it is the Government who did not provide for safe passage to pedestrians and who up till today has not done anything to do so.

john fenech Contributory negligence.

Joseph Attard

Dec 11th 2009, 13:39

Dak mhux post fejn taqsam it-triq. Meta nbniet it triq imissu nbena bridge jew subway minn fejn persuna tista taqsam bil kalma kollha. Timmaginaw anzjan jaqsam minn hemm? Jekk Bypass qeda fejn l- abitata, irid ikun hemm hsieb ghan-nies , u mhux ghal karozzi biss!

Malta t-toroq m'humhiex safe. Dawn l- incidenti jirrepetu ruhom kontinwamwnt. M'ilu xejn ittajjar dak l- anzjan li waqaf jixtri l- imqaret fit-triq li tihdok minn hattard ghar rabat. Dik mhux tragedja li setet giet evitata wkoll?

John Mula

Dec 11th 2009, 13:20

It is true 2 people are dead and nothing done now can change the fact that they will be brought back to life. Worst still is the fact that they are children in their teens.
However one cannot blame the driver, as a road is made for driving and the limit on that stretch is 80KM, so even if you suddenly brake to avoid an accident, the chances are that they shall still be hit.
One also cannot blame the girls as their is nowhere on the road is there a place were one can safely cross, and bars or barriers that prevent people from crossing into the road......
So the one who really is to blame in my opinion is the roads authority for failing to provide safety measures just in case something like this happens.
Also if you do see kids television of the UK, they are full of advertisements warning people about crossing in the dark.... What about Malta ??? Do lives cost more than awareness or health and safety?

M.Micallef

Dec 11th 2009, 13:12

Apart from the distance traveled it takes to stop the car... one have to take into consideration the human reaction time ...about 0.8 of a second...and if they suddenly crossed the road... its natural that he hasn't touched the brake yet.

Henry Calleja

Dec 11th 2009, 13:02

Most of these fatal accidents take place because young drivers are reckless, and enjoy themselves in speeding beyond control. If Mr Cutajar was speeding normally he would have seen the two youngsters crossing. He should have been banned of driving for at least ten years and given a jail sentence too. He is free and the two young girls are dead. Who can console their parents and friends?

D. Vella

Dec 11th 2009, 12:55

whilst my heart goes out to the parents, I still think that the two girls have some kind of fault in all of this. We see this every day and in all the roads all around Malta. whilst drivers should give their utmost attention whilst driving, i also thing that pedestrians should be a bit more careful when it comes to crossing roads, It is not fair to five the blame solely to the driver since the girls were most probably not crossing over a zebra cross either

Monica Spiteri

Dec 11th 2009, 12:44

My heartfelt sympathies go to the victims' families. However, it very often happens that at night time when it is dark, on a 'highway' with very little traffic on the road, a driver is faced with somebody on the side of the road deciding to make a dash for it and cross the road without considering that a car is approaching and without assessing the speed of the car. This is putting not only themselves at risk but also the driver of the car.

Raymond Sammut

Dec 11th 2009, 12:13

@ George Busuttil --"Ourt judges and magistrates should have more freehand..."

The "freehand" is a loose term that causes ambiguity and which does not help anybody. More precisely, judges and magistrates are required to follow guidelines imposed on them by parliamentarians when sentencing. In reality, therefore, it's anything but a freehand. It's entirely up to the voting public to confront their parliamentarians (lawmakers) and make them explain why these guidelines do not require a prison term when loss of life results from culpable driving. A prison term, even if a short one, can serve as a deterrent to drivers.

In Malta, there are as many registered vehicles as there are people, if not more. The Maltese government, therefore, should be considering establishing an Accident Research facility. This facility --most probably located at UoM-- would be charged with investigating how accidents are occurring, not only on the road network but also in other places such as building sites. This would provide the Maltese government with professional advice on how to deal with dangerous situations proactively and minimise loss of life. For example, I do not believe that Maltese parliamentarians are behaving rationally when issuing guidelines to the Law Courts.

victor borg

Dec 11th 2009, 11:49

he should have at least lost his driving licence for a few years and be made to do
community work
two beautiful girls were taken away before they even started to live

Kevin Zammit

Dec 11th 2009, 11:42

This is just so as to frame the sort of mentality we are talking about:

Last month in Kordin I reached one of those roundabouts painted on the streets. I had a give way sign and so I slowed down looking to my left. This woman just sped through doing at least 50 round a bend. Barely noticed her and cut me off. So she keeps going waving out of the window signalling an appology. Coincidentally we were going with our kids to the same place. I parked right next to her and she came out apologising in "english". I replied that I did not accept her apologies as I felt that she had no excuse. For this she just started yelling at me! Saying things like "As if I would endanger my children!"

Well quite frankly I said yes I did think she was endangering her children. Come on ... a corner a roundabout painted, a huge sign painted telling you to give way, over speeding for the type of street, a lot of people are normally around. What do you call that if not reckless?

No sir/madam not for her ... she thinks she drives well!

Marcelline Micallef

Dec 11th 2009, 11:39

My sister was run over by a car when she was using the zebra crossing on the Gzira/Sliema seafront on 17th April 1998. She was run over by an ice-cream van/kiosk and suffered brain death on the spot. She was a mother of 2 kids who were 15 and 12 years of age at the time. We miss her sorely and our life is not the same anymore without her. Was justice done?????? The negligent driver was handed down with 6 months suspension of licence and a fine of 500 Malta Pounds and he has been on the roads again ever since and never cared 2 hoots about what our family went through. Life is so unfair!!!

Eric Soames

Dec 11th 2009, 11:37

The lights were green and the pedestrians were crossing?

Kevin Zammit

Dec 11th 2009, 11:31

For all those who lay any blame on the girls.

Are you perhaps one of those drivers that we see everyday on nthese streets? You turn ariund corners without slowing, go through cross roads and stops without slowing, run red lights while changing, overspeeding no matter where you are. Overtakes from the inner lane, cuts people off in traffic. Does any of this mean anything to you? I doubt it.

I have dropped my kids off at school in blata l-bajda and there were 20 something year olds gunning their car and honking their horn ... like we're supposed to throw the kids out the window while moving.

In short there exists no road courtesy at all. Just a savage mentality and this is the result and the judge in this case is sending out a signal that its ok ... 2 girls got killed and you can continue with your life as long as you do not kill anybody else.

This poor mum is right. At least ban this fool from driving. It is qute obvious he was driving at ridiculous speeds.

Peter Murray

Dec 11th 2009, 11:18

Dear Ms.Lorraine Vella.

Your heart goes out to the parents yet it must be ice-cold to intimate that you agree with the sentence and it is patently obvious that you cannot have been blessed with children yourself. Through your tacit implication that the poor girls somehow contributed to their own untimely unfinished life you have determined that this travesty of justice being served is appropriate and just and whilst nothing can bring those beautiful young ladies back to life ,giving the parents a modicum of solace by handing down a commensurate punishment must have been the only course of action. I would argue that their is no worse fate in life than to have to bury your child regardless of the reason why he/she was taken from you.

Steve Mizzi

Dec 11th 2009, 11:18

Like everyone with a heart and a conscience I feel for the victims and their families, especially since I witnessed a similar tragedy 20 years ago in Balzan. No one deserves such a fate. I can also understand that those closest to the victims need to direct their anger at someone and in such a situation the driver is a natural candidate.

However I have a feeling that the person who should be complaining about injustice is the driver himself. Based on this article, he was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence and definitely not beyond reasonable doubt. The excessive speed was not proven but assumed just because the car was in fifth gear and the traffic lights were green. No mention of brake marks, so are we going to start judging a cars speed on the length of the road?
How can someone be absolved of negligent driving and found “guilty of causing the girls’ death”? If he wasn’t negligent, at most he contributed to it.

The reality is that in this case there are 3 victims, 2 paid the ultimate price and the the third will live with the images for the rest of his life

Rachel Attard

Dec 11th 2009, 11:10

@ Mr. George Busuttil

He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done.

M. Costa

Dec 11th 2009, 11:06

I can't understand why the court doesn't know the speed the car was travelling at - the magistrate said that it was "probably more than 70km/h". Couldn't they have determined the speed via, say, the tyre marks left on the ground when the car braked? More than 70km/h could mean 80km/h or it could mean 130km/h.

jane camilleri haber

Dec 11th 2009, 10:58

I would not know how I would feel had this terrible thing happened to one of my children. I would not know either how I would feel if I had been the unfortunate mother of the young man who at the negligence of a moment got into this mess. what I am more clear about is ; that when two young lives with all the future that could have been their's, all the love they could have given and received, all the good and beautiful things of life which they had been suddenly deprived of, besides the painful death and the devastation of their loved ones....are lost and the justice met out ( after 4 years) is not judged by society at large to be adequate, it gives out the message that our nation does not highly regard the value of the life of its citizens ...and the most vulnerable too... children! having said that and very earnestly too, I agree fully with Mr. Busuttil that community work rather than a prison term would have been very fruitful to one and all .

Dr Francis Saliba

Dec 11th 2009, 10:29

@Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl

An appropriate sentence would have sent the correct message to the arrogantly careless drivers that infest our roads, namely, that two innocent young lives do not come cheap - and that would have benefitted all society. Apart from criminally careless drivers being defended by Mid-Dalm ghad-Dawl there are other law-abiding citizens who also have some rights e.g. not to be slaughtered on our roads!

Sue Mercieca

Dec 11th 2009, 10:25

I suggest that the ADT start some sort of campaing aimed at pedestrians. Unfortunately the youths should never have crossed that road. This comment should not be construed as taking anybody's side -- but as educational to all in order to avoid repeat accidents in other roads where pedestrians are not indicated that they can in fact cross the road. Another accident that comes to mind is the recent 73year old who crossed the main arterial road in Attard towards Ta Qali and was hit by a car. A proper lookout is always a must with drivers but pedestrians should also be aware of road signs.

M. Debono

Dec 11th 2009, 10:18

Though I can understand the mother's reaction, few can understand what she's been through,

I also understand the fact that, it is extremely dangerous to cross that particular road where the accident happened.
If I remember correctly, the accident happened after sunset, and it is easier for the pedstrian to keep a lookout, as a car with headlights on is visible from quite a long distance, than for a driver to see a pedestrian crossing at night.

The pedestrians should be extremely careful to cross roads, which have no traffic lights, no speed cameras, and with inadequate lightning, as ultimately it is their lives they are putting at risk.

David Stephen Ganado

Dec 11th 2009, 10:07

I feel sorry for the parents of these two girls. Their loss can never be replaced; but to expect a jail term for the driver is pushing it.
We have a habit in Malta of walking in, and crossing roads as though we have a God given right to do so. The roads are there primarily for Motor vehicles, so if you want to cross them, especially where there is no pedestrian crossing, you do so at your own peril.
The speed limit on that particular road was and still is 80km/h so he had every right to be driving at that speed. It is obvious the girls just ran across the road without looking otherwise they wouild have noticed a vehicle speeding towards them!
Just remember that as much as the parents have to live with their loss, the driver has to live for the rest of his life with the remorse of having caused their death, albeit through no real fault of his own.

D Buttigieg

Dec 11th 2009, 10:06

Whilst I send all my sympathy to the mother of the victim, as mentioned before, the girls unfortunately have part of the blame too. Obviously it is much better if nothing of this happened but that how it is now. Whilst a prison sentence will not bring both victims back, we cannot point our fingers at the court for giving out such as a sentence as the driver will serve a sentence all his life for causing the death of the 2 girls, whether it was his fault or even worse if it wasn't. There is NO winners here but only LOSS OF LIFE. The driver is a victim too.

Etienne Vella

Dec 11th 2009, 10:02

I have great sympathy for the mother of this child in this unfortunate accident.

however, the man was accused of improper look out. what about the look out of the passers by when crossing the road?? especially in such a road where cars tend to drove at more than 70km/hr. (and being only 13 years old).

in my opinion it was a harsh decision for the driver. but also very tough to accept the death of a young child.

Marianna Galea Xuereb

Dec 11th 2009, 09:52

@ Lorraine Vella: Totally agree.

I think we ought to make the showing of road safety films compulsory in primary and secondary schools and such films should also feature graphic pictures of actual road accident victims as well as details of the particular “slip”, momentary carelessness or transgression that led to a fatal accident or permanent disability. This will benefit drivers and pedestrians.

John Deguara

Dec 11th 2009, 09:51

It is understable for the family to be really irate.

But it must also be pointed out that the road, especially where the accident happened, is not a road for crossing.

My sympathy goes out to the driver, as well as to the bereft families, as the fault cannot be fully borne by him.

P Baldacchino

Dec 11th 2009, 09:43

No one is blaming the design of our main roads. Why were the victims compelled to cross an arterial road in the first place? Why are roads designed without underpasses for pedestrians? A good example that must be emulated is the pedestrian underpass near the Oratory at the B'Kara bypass. The absence of such pedestrian underpasses (or footbridges) is resulting in pedestrians crossing main roads or in blocking our main arterial roads with dangerous traffic light crossings. An arterial road should not have a traffic lights crossing but properly designed pedestrian underpasses or footbridges.

Joseph E Briffa

Dec 11th 2009, 09:42

It is not clear to me where exactly the accident happened. There is mention of a street in Qormi as well as the Mriehel Bypass - which I presume is what we used to call l-Imriehel since there is mention of the traffic lights near the MFSA building. If it was the Mriehel road, I don't think it's a prudent for a pedestrian to cross this busy road especially after sunset. A pedestrian in the middle of a busy road contributes to the cause of an accident; indeed one can argue that he is the cause of an accident.. Though one expects drivers to keep within the speed limit and to keep a proper look out, there is certainly no place for a pedestrian in the middle of a busy road.. Having said that, I agree with George Busuttil that no good would have come out of jailing the driver; community work could have been an option. It's true that no amount of financial compensation to the families of the victims can ever compensate for the great loss, but in time would have been a help in the healing process of the victims' families.

john fenech

Dec 11th 2009, 09:40

Mr. Busutill following is 225 of Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code:

225. Whosoever, through imprudence, carelessness, unskilfulness in his art or profession, or non-observance of regulations, causes the death of any person, shall, on conviction, be
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years or to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (11,646.87).

The Magistrate ruling seems to be very sympathetic to the young man. Suspended 4-year sentence and 33% of the maximum fine.

While it might be true that a prison sentence could have adverse effect on the individual but on the other hand what should be an adequate deterrent against involuntary manslaughter- the taking of a human life? Do you think that community work is proportional to the event?

Money or imprisonment is not the currency with which human life is measured but on the other hand, protection of human life should have no limit on its value.

J.Camilleri

Dec 11th 2009, 09:35

A court employee who forgot to switch on the air conditioner had a harsher sentence!

Eric Camilleri

Dec 11th 2009, 09:35

Mr Busuttil
Go and say that on the girls' tombstones. Mid-Dawl ghad-Dlam !

Lorraine Vella
You state some fault lies with the girls. How do you know that ? If they were jay walking and you have proof of that then let us know. It is true that jay walking is rife in Malta and I have also witnessed people (especially females) taking the whole time in the world to cross even dangerous roads, occassionally even sms texting in the process. Yet the responsability lies with the drivers, the ones in control of the machine called a vehicle, which if abused or uncontrolled can become a deadly machine as in cases like this. Talking of responsibility, may I invite you to join me in trying to cross that very road, which till today offers no facilities for pedestrians to cross it. Bear in mind that there is a housing community isolated from Qormi by this very dangerous by-pass (and if I am not mistake was where the victims lived) and consequently it is essential that these residents cross over to Qormi for their daily needs.
If there is an ass in this whole story its the authorities.

g.c.Forte

Dec 11th 2009, 09:23

Some argue that the girls ( May God rests their souls) have to carry some of the blame, some argue that the driver ( a boy by that time ) have to lift the all the blame,or part of it. The point is that this road is classified as a "motor way", and the motorist have all the rights of the road to drive without "exceeding the limit". On the other hand the pedestrians, have no access to cross, and it is VERY DANGEROUS to go from one side to another. Now who should lift the most responsibility ? In my opinion, because this road is situated between an Industrial zone,and habitation area, the architect/s who built this road should have thought about a safe crossing for the pedestrians. May I ask why today having this tragic incident the government done nothing yet to solve this problem, before another accident will happen ?

joseph farrugia

Dec 11th 2009, 09:17

Jien ukoll nahseb li s-sentenza kienet leggera izda billi tibghatu il habs il habs is-socjeta ma hi ser tgwadanja xejn,ghalhekk nissugerixi li f'kaz bhal dan min jinstab hati ghandu jmurr jaghmel xoghol fejn ikun hemm nies li jbaghtu min xi feriti jew ikunu jsofru xi tbatija li lil min ikun hati iddahlu f'qoxortu hu jifhem min xiex jistaw jaghdu lill min aghmel il htija.Jew anke jintbghat jaghti l-ghajnuna lil min ikun korra b'xi incident tat-traffiku u ma jkunx jista jghix hajja normali minhabba l'incident.

clive borg

Dec 11th 2009, 09:13

the mother has the right to sue the driver, but how can she tells that she is disgraceful for what the court has given... she has to remeber that the driver has already seen too much by killing two persons for the childrens own inegligence to crossing a bypass...

and the mother should know that kids, arent to be left alone crossing a bypass...

C Fenech

Dec 11th 2009, 09:11

unfortunately no prison sentence will bring back these girls - the mother's grief and anger is fully understandable and no amount of reasoning will make things better - however, it would have been a grave injustice throwing a man in jail because two young girls crossed a road where they shouldn't have (on one of malta's major roads) at 8.45pm .... just as the man should have been looking out, the girls' parents should have taught them where and when to cross roads.

Jeremey Trigona

Dec 11th 2009, 08:54

Lets be realistic why were the two girls crossing from that dangerous part of the road? If a person is driving and suddenly a human being appears in a split of a second on the road you and I know that you will not brake the car instantly. What is the speed limit 70 km/hr? Overspeeding is one thing but accuse the poor guy of murder! Surely not!! I do understand the families postions but a 17 yr old and a 13 yr old should have been taken care of more then letting them cross such dangerous roads!!

JPisani

Dec 11th 2009, 08:52

While I feel very sorry for the family of the victims, the only injustice I see in this case is the permission to keep on driving in our roads.

Lets face it, as the Magistrate Micallef Trigona said " there was a link between the speed the accused was going at and the accident " so technically he was not at fault. Unfortunetely, they where crossing a ByPass during the night, a place where you dont expect people to cross. I believe that a prison sentence would have been too harsh. I understand that at the end of the day he killed two young persons, but the was driving was according to the speed limit (Magistrate), and was in a ByPass during the night. You never expect to see persons crossing in such bypasses. Carelessness was coming from both ends.

Pamela Hansen

Dec 11th 2009, 08:49

"Mr Cutajar was guilty of careless driving in terms of article 225 of Chapter 9 of the Criminal Code. However, the court ruled he was not driving negligently."
Does this make any sense to anyone?
I am not after a witchhunt, but what kind of signal are judgments like this giving the many reckless drivers on the road?
Cars can be weapons, they kill and maim. Judgements should reflct this.
And what about his license? Is this man still driving?

Franco Farrugia

Dec 11th 2009, 08:45

The least that should have been done, in the circumstances, in my opinion, is to have the driving licences permanently revoked.

G.Azzopardi

Dec 11th 2009, 08:40

Ms.Vella
Agreed - I feel the same. However it must be pointed out that Children dont know how to judge speed vs distance. It is up to us drivers to make sure to be extra vigilant. How many times do we see cars driving at fast speeds in narrow roads with cars parked at both ends. In a split second a child could easily try to cross the road from between the cars. How many times do people drive fast where roads bend and thus you cannot see up front. What if there's a broken down car or something in the road - slam into it!
We must be more careful and I think it is not court sentences which will make us more careful - but more education on TV (anyone old enough like me to remember the "Ha noqghod quddiem, ha noqghod quddiem" and the "Roundabout give way" ads on TV? They made a big difference to me - I grew up (I was already in my late teens then, with those constantly in my mind and therefore today obey those hints (and laws) more.

George Busuttil

Dec 11th 2009, 08:12

Never having the misfortune this mother went through I can only guess at the anguish she has been through these last years and fully sympathise with her when wishing that justice is done.


I am also very sorry to learn that as victims of this accident they were never offered help. This should have been done immediately to start the healing process but even now it is not too late.

About the sentence I would like to say that a prison term would have served nobody, neither the victim's families nor the young man found guilty. Even more a prison sentence would have not been to any advantage to society at large.

We conceed that the young man was found guilty and should be punished but prison should not be the only option for a punishment. In this case and in many more like it community work would have served us all much better.

Ourt judges and magistrates should have more freehand to pass out these type of sentences.

G. Busuttil
Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl

Malcolm Mifsud

Dec 11th 2009, 08:11

That's the problem with the law today. Serious crimes are not being given the sentences they deserve, leaving lots questions to be asked. The value of human life has become a joke.

J Farrugia

Dec 11th 2009, 07:33

I completely agree with the victim's mother and once more I condemn the courts for being too lenient in their sentencing policy. shame on our law courts for perpetrating the injustice which has already been caused to the victims' families.

Lorraine Vella

Dec 11th 2009, 07:31

My heart goes out for the parents, but some fault also lies with the girls. One must admit that all the 3 parties involved have some degree or another of fault.