Lillian's family want names for drug-test petition
| Posted: September 30, 2011
CAMPAIGN: Gary, Natasha, Rhianna and Oliver Groves demand zero tolerance for drug-drivers
THE Advertiser's anti-drug-driving campaign continues to gather pace.
Tomorrow (Saturday) the family of teenager Lillian Groves will be in the Whitgift Centre calling on shoppers to back our efforts.
The campaign was picked up by the BBC last week and was the main story on its regional evening news programme.
It has also won the support of international drugs-testing firm Concateno.
Croydon Central MP Gavin Barwell is also trying to raise the issue in the House of Commons.
In total, more than 8,500 people have signed the petition, which calls on the Government to introduce roadside drugs-testing devices, impose tougher sentences for drug-drivers and adopt a zero tolerance approach to drug-driving.
The campaign is named after Lillian, 14, who was killed outside her home in Headley Drive, New Addington, by speeding driver John Page, who admitted to smoking cannabis before getting behind the wheel.
Page, 35, admitted causing death by careless driving after the collision in June last year.
He was given an eight-month sentence, reduced by half for an early guilty plea.
Because of the police do not have roadside drugs-testing kits, Page was not tested until nine hours after his arrest.
Lillian's family will be in the Whitgift Centre, outside WH Smith, collecting signatures from 9.45pm tomorrow.
To sign the Lillian's Law petition, visit http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/5005
Comments
Ivor, its refreshing to see an educated opinion here, instead of the usual crowd following "burn her, she's a witch" type mob mentality :)
Ivor, its refreshing to see an educated opinion here, instead of the usual crowd following "burn her, she's a witch" type mob mentality :)
Ivor And All. Do Believe I had got it Wrong..... Sorry :( ......And Ivor My partner has just finished off your filthy Verse, Made me giggle........x
tbg - I may be wrong about the license - it has happened in the past but is as rare as rocking horse poo, but in the article "Man charged with causing schoolgirl's death by careless driving" - January 21 it did say: "He has also been charged with causing death while driving in a vehicle while unlicensed and using a motor vehicle without third party insurance". I assumed it was Page that was unlicensed. PS - Kipling - "chapters" - next you'll be wanting "chapter & verse" There was a young lady from Fieldway who once tried a strawberry sundae .....................
Ivor love , He did have a license, But, because he borrowed the car, HE had No insurance to drive it. Now If I have got this right (I may not have) It was the fault of the owner and Page himself, to allow him to drive it. So that being so, Page should have been banned from driving and had points giving too. But Must Admit I can not remember if that happened. And would like to Know what happened to the owner of the car? Don't think that was mentioned at all, Interesting to "Find out" what happens to someone who "Knowingly" again not sure! lends a car to someone not on their policy?
was it a kid and an adult of some kind of slow midget? Jesus shed, your going to have to but chapters in that thing, the people of Croydon can't read that much, thats why the Advertiser paper is so full of padding and pictures Its like we all have ADHD, oh look a squirrel
How did this thread get so far without me expressing an (unwanted - no doubt) opinion? With 25 previous articles and more than 150 comments on this matter I am likely to miss something but I'm sure it won't be long before I am 'corrected'. I believe No-one should drive a car if their ability to do so is impaired. That includes Drink, drugs, using mobile phones, loud music, wearing a Halloween mask (or a burka), wearing high heeled shoes or wellies, and my personal favourite – having 2 screaming fighting toddlers in the back seat or one screaming baby. All of these things will either impair your ability to control the car or prevent you from paying attention. I can't understand the current mania about using mobile phones when all cars come with complicated radio/CD players, many drivers use Sat.Nav. and drivers are even allowed to light and smoke cigarettes whilst in control of the car. John Page did not leave the scene of the accident. Police and ambulance attended and none of them thought he was so 'spaced out' that he was on drugs. A joint was found in the car and 'traces' of cannabis were found in his bloodstream but we won't find out by how much he was affected. It was suggested that Lillian might not have been able to hear the car engine because of the noise of the planes. Perhaps John Page was distracted by a low flying plane in front of him? He had borrowed a car and was driving it with no license and no insurance. I didn't notice a driving ban but hope he won't be booking in for his driving test within the next 5 years. Is there no liability on the owner of the car for lending it to someone with no license, knowing it is uninsured? Page was travelling at 43mph in a 30mph zone. I assume this was calculated from the distance travelled after the accident although if he didn't use his brakes, make any skid marks or impact another vehicle then I am surprised that the figure is quoted so accurately. Nevertheless, I am sure that simply travelling at 43mph in a 30mph zone is in itself not dangerous driving. How many roads are there in Croydon where 30mph is 'too slow', and many others where it is too fast! It has been said that Headley drive is a long straight road. Lillian was ¾ of the way across when she was hit. Why didn't he see her? Was it due to drugs or simply the poor driving skills of someone with no license, in a borrowed car talking to 2 x passengers, perhaps showing off? We already have laws regarding driving without a license (they take away the license you don't have and that you are happy to drive without). They have procedures for uninsured vehicles (they are towed away and it costs the owner about £140 to reclaim it, and the driver gets a fine and points). These laws and procedures don't stop it happening. Roadside breath tests don't eradicate drink driving and nor will roadside drug tests. If you believe what you see on TV then the USA doesn't have roadside breath tests – just subjective sobriety tests. And now the other side of the coin Lillian was 14 years old – not 4. Headley Drive has a known problem with speeding "particularly along the part of the road where this tragedy occurred" – so Lillian was familiar with the problem Apparently she looked left and right yet still went across the road in front of an oncoming car. Did she calculate that at 30mph she had just enough time to retrieve the ball? .Having said all of that, I wish them every success in their endeavours and hope that the police take 'drugged driving' more seriously. The TV cop programmes only seem to show a carload of lads being stopped, searched and given a 'roadside caution'. I have never seen the driver tested nor the car impounded and the occupants sent home on the bus.
Your forgetting something though misterkipling. One was a child and one was an adult, and adult is expected to know more, wouldn't you think eh?
It wasn't drugs that got the girl into the middle of the road though, it was a complete lack of road safety wasn't it? Little blame on both sides here?
It wasn't drugs that got the girl into the middle of the road though, it was a complete lack of road safety wasn't it? Little blame on both sides here?