I hope she appeals that. It's the responsibility of all road users to take care and that includes children. It may considered the parent's responsibility for not adequately teaching the child or for nor accompanying it.

The result of this prosecution could see us all crawling along at ridiculously low speeds and children jumping out in front of us because they can.

Is there a crowd funding I can contribute to for her appeal?

Sorry, to those posting above, I understood most of that.

I guess I just thought how "interesting", it will be for the driver to consider that they didn't commit a crime but were punished nevertheless.

I appreciate the difference in burden of proof.

"The result isn't really a punishment to the driver; her insurers will foot the bill."

And presumably the driver's insurance will be increased as a result of the claim, so there is a "punishment", albeit an indirect one.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that if a green light was on for mire than 10 seconds cars will go at 28mph?

There is a school near us where students wait by the side of the road and jump into passing traffic as some sort of game or dare. Plod had a word with the little f**rs on more than one occasion but that is it, the game is continuing and I assume the writing is on the wall somewhere.

The driver was ""guilty"" the moment she got in the car and drove off. No human who was not there could possible determine the true circumstances and the speed of the car in the prevailing conditions. I suppose a safe speed whatever that might have been would be where the driver could have stopped. As a driver it is impossible to anticipate all scenarios that might happen. Even police drivers trained to the highest standards have accidents. The driver was not prosecuted and to my mind the judge being a ""good"" person allocated a degree of blame so that the poor child has some money for a better life.

She had a traffic camera in her car the data from which was part of the evidence used in court. AIUI and from what we see on TV these things are GPS linked so speed, position etc are recorded on the fly. If not then speed can be determined from the video by a simple time over known and measured distance calculation.

I am ALWAYS wary of young children at traffic lights.

Seen kid dash over when light red..many years ago. Horrible warning.

For chrissake! The kid had a RED light telling her not to cross. The driver had a GREEN light.

Do you bother to read the OP's post?

My driving instructor told me that the only certain conclusion you could draw from a green light (or I suppose a GREEN light) was that there was a circuit through the filament. Proceed but watch out in case somebody's missread the junction, a toddler escapes Mum's grip etc.

While cars have to stop at Pelican type crossings I don't think there's anything to stop pedestrians crossing on their own observation as they would anywhere else.

The girl was 12, not an adult. Late for school? Trying to catch up with mates?

I've not had time to read the judgment in full but I'm reasonably sure the Judge went through the possibilities.

In my view, if it was deemed that the child was responsible enough to know right from wrong, then the 'percentage fault' should've been significanlty higher for her. I suppose it how this is determined generally against an individual's mental age and the parenting skills / due dilligence would be a matter of debate, similar to that for 'responsibility' for children committing serious crimes.

Most of us were taight the Green Cross Code well before the age of 12, and in my view would only have themselves to blame for the majority of the time.

Saying that, road users always need to keep a sharp eye out for potential hazards, including people stepping out into the road, animals, etc, and err on the side of caution to a reasonable degree. We cannot always assume no-one won't be inattentive or an i****, especially if we cannot see all the surrounding environment.

I agree that the speed limit isn't something we should 'aim for', but an absolute maximum under ideal conditions. We also shouldn't crawl around (as some do) as if there's some imminent danger all the time. Sometimes being overly cautious can induce other mistakes by concentrating on minucia / triviality rather than the bigger picture.

If a motorist hits a pedestrian, it's the motorist's fault.

Not always.

I've had a few:

Kid ran out between two parked cars. I was in a bubble car and had just turned left. Stood on the brakes and the silly little sod fell down in fright. I think I didn't touch him.

Passing a stationary bus on my left a bloke darted out. I was on a motorbike going slow. Applied brakes and pulled the clutch just as he ran into my handlebars. Crushed nuts! When he was able to speak he said he didn't bear me a grudge.

Kid ran out in front of a stationary bus as I was passing. Braked hard and stopped in time, but I found out what the broken cable between the gearbox and chassis was for. The fan drove into the radiator and I replaced fan, radiator and cable.

If we could use emoticons, yes. I guess I could have typed "swivel eyes" or something similar.

We can use them, and I often use the common ones. What we can't use is the 'pictorial' emojis. Most emoticons are keyboard combinations which modern email programs convert into emojis automatically.

:-) :-( ;-) etc

If we could use emoticons, yes. I guess I could have typed "swivel eyes" or something similar.

Ah! Sorry B-I-G.

I tend to use the, ".." but I guess no one else knows what I mean..