Jail for motorist, 84, who killed cyclist after being told not to drive due to failing eyesight

hawkinspeter wrote:

Statistically, old people aren't a big problem when driving as they tend to go slower and use known routes. Obviously there comes a point when failing faculties make even slow driving dangerous.

When cycling, I'm more anxious around younger drivers than older ones. The problem is when the younger drivers drive emotionally and get extremely angry if anyone criticises their skill or gets in their way.

By 'younger' I take it you mean anyone under 70 years of age. There are an awful lot of angry gammons with road ownership issues out there.

hawkinspeter wrote:

What we need is some kind of emotional aptitude test for drivers. I'd suggest make it a computer based test of e.g. highway code signs, but have the computer be deliberately slow and have the keyboard/mouse malfunction slightly. Then, the people who get irate with the computer are banned for 6 months.

Sounds good. The snag is that, once word gets out that all they have to do is be calm during the brief test, then they're free to take it out on the first cyclist they encounter.

I've long argued that a simple eye test - not one requiring an optometrist but a reading chart in subdued lighting* and some other items at a greater distance - should be compulsory for every driver. 5 year intervals?

* I found that my ability to read road signs etc got worse towards dusk and an eyesight test showed that it was just about poor enough to warrant specs. Without them I can see objects (cars, people, cats, potholes) fine, they're just a bit fuzzy, but I'd rather be sure I'm seeing everything I should so I always wear them to drive now.

My Dad's hazard perception and awareness of speed limit changes etc got worryingly bad in his late 70s and it was a relief when he voluntarily accepted that he didn't feel safe any more. We wished he'd done it sooner and it was never an easy conversation.

I think it's the newest drivers who are most likely to crash, but as you say, middle-aged rage seems to be ubiquitous in drivers.

I'm sure we can come up with other rage tests:

• have some teenagers walk slowly in front of them (spread out in a line, blocking the pavement) as they approach the test centre.
• ask them about Brexit
• test them driving behind a wobbly 6 year old on a bike

Maybe it just needs to be a Voight-Kampff style test:

• Describe in single words only the good things that come to mind about squirrels

Simon E wrote:

I've long argued that a simple eye test - not one requiring an optometrist but a reading chart in subdued lighting* and some other items at a greater distance - should be compulsory for every driver. 5 year intervals?

Given eye tests are relatively cheap and can detect several other health issues early (diabetes, high blood pressure) before other symptoms trigger investigation, we should be requiring a full optometrists eye test every 5 years to drive anyway. (even if we stop subsidising them with overpriced glasses, it is still a rounding error on car running costs...)

The dvla should only get a report that states fit to drive, unfit to drive, or fit with restrictions (e.g. wearing glasses or not at night) and retest frequency if there are restrictions. I wear glasses, so should have it retested every 2 years currently (sight stable, hasn't changed in a while), but 10 years ago needed yearly eyetests, and will probably need increasing frequency as I get older...

qwerty360 wrote:

Given eye tests are relatively cheap and can detect several other health issues early (diabetes, high blood pressure) before other symptoms trigger investigation, we should be requiring a full optometrists eye test every 5 years to drive anyway. (even if we stop subsidising them with overpriced glasses, it is still a rounding error on car running costs...)

The dvla should only get a report that states fit to drive, unfit to drive, or fit with restrictions (e.g. wearing glasses or not at night) and retest frequency if there are restrictions. I wear glasses, so should have it retested every 2 years currently (sight stable, hasn't changed in a while), but 10 years ago needed yearly eyetests, and will probably need increasing frequency as I get older...

Good points.

It could work like MoT stations, which have automatic access & online updating - they can update each driver's DVLA record as soon as the test is done. Each will then have a test history with dates and outcome of each one. This information would be available to the police if they had reason to stop the driver.

Simon E wrote:

I've long argued that a simple eye test - not one requiring an optometrist but a reading chart in subdued lighting* and some other items at a greater distance - should be compulsory for every driver. 5 year intervals?

There is already half a mechanism in place to do that. Drivers now have to renew their licences every 10 years. At the moment, all you need to do is complete and submit a form online and provide an up to date photo. 

Personally I would start requiring drivers to submit proof of having passed authorised vision and highway code tests within the three months leading up to renewal in order for the renewal to be granted. 

It won't even cost the government that much in cash terms. Written tests are required to get the licence in the first place, so the infrastructure exists to carry those out officially, and an Optometrists certification that the official vision test has been passed can't be that hard to set up. 

Taking this a tad further, how's about this for an idea... 

From the age of 60, a mandatory retest every five years. This to also include a mandatory passing of an eye test. 

This five year retest should also be applied to anyone (at any age) with six or more license points on their driving licence and / or who have been involved in two or more car insurance claims within a 24month period. 

Look at allocation of driving penalty points and insurance claims as an indicator for below standard driving and take pro-active action to check. 

Means a shift away from the current 'right to drive' as apposed to 'earned priviledge'

taberesc wrote:

 ...... 75 seems like a sensible age to hand over your licence. 

And I can guarantee you will hold this opinion right up until your 74th birthday.

Unless of course you are also a victim of an old person who has lost the ability to control a machine that allows them to move a huge lump of metal at speed.

The issue isn't age as such, but doctors unwillingness to refuse to revoked licences for medical reasons. Sterling Moss continued to race, and hold a racing licence, until he was 81. Some people are dangerous at a younger age. My mother in law is 61 and has slowed down and become less confident in her driving over the past few years and should quit driving soon. My mother who is 73 is absolutly fine, and is aware of her slowing reactions so leaves extra breaking distence and is absolutly safe, and is probably much safer than many much younger drivers who tailgate and drive as if there is nothing round the corner.

My mother is 76. She is a lot more cautious driver than she used to be but I've no reason to believe she isn't a safe driver.

My in laws are 80 and 76.  They are both more cautious than they used to be but I've seen no evidence they are no longer safe drivers.

My wife's aunt is 79 and is blatantly an unsafe driver.  She has been told this several times, and recently she wrote off her car reversing out of her son's drive by mistaking the brake and accelerator pedals.  Thankfully, she was only bruised and no one else was injured.  To my horror, she went straight out and bought a new car and carried on driving.  Following a very recent fall, she has now been persuaded to stop driving but I was surprised (and appalled) that other members of the family weren't taking it seriously prior to that - "We have suggested she thinks about stopping driving,  but she doesn't know how she will get to the shops.",  etc. "Get a fucking taxi rather than kill someone!" didn't seem to persuade them how serious it was. It could have been her sent to jail for several years which would have devastated the whole family, even before considering the family of whoever she might have killed.

I remember Logan's Run when it was at the cinema. At that time, sending the oldies to carousel at the age of 30 seemed perfectly reasonable. Now I'd be the old man living in the ruins with cats.

An age cutoff is arbitary, we all know people who are unsafe to drive at any age and older people who are still perfectly competent. Mandatory retests are a good idea and should be seen as a cost of driving which would for many people make giving up the car for economic reasons and using taxi or public transport a more attractive option.

If only he had listened to the experts who had knowledge of his eyes and his ability to see, or he had actually thought of the danger that he was while in control of a large vehicle.

I feel more for the family and friends of Hanno Garbe.  Whose life was cut terribly short by this selfish, mostly blind, old man

A sensible system would have spared both of them from the concequences of the old geezer's foolish selfishness.  By obliging medical professionals to report it when someone is clearly medically-incabable of driving safely.

  There are 'safeguarding' laws that impose obligations on professionals to report when someone is a danger to others in other contexts, why not for this also?

I'm with you ktache, but a prison sentence seems pointless and unnecessary for an 84 year old without previous convictions. I think a lot of people have a very poor perception of the great harm it invariably does and in a case like this serves no real purpose.

This is a man who drove despite knowing it was illegal for him to do so.

He killed someone whilst driving illegally.

With his track record of complete disregard for the law do you think he's likely to abide by the terms of a driving ban?

The only way to ensure he doesn't drive again and potentially kill again is to send him to prison.

His age is irrelevant.

Rich_cb wrote:

This is a man who drove despite knowing it was illegal for him to do so. He killed someone whilst driving illegally. With his track record of complete disregard for the law do you think he's likely to abide by the terms of a driving ban? The only way to ensure he doesn't drive again and potentially kill again is to send him to prison. His age is irrelevant.

I agree - It's for the individual to decide if they can face up to the consequences of their actions. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Rich_cb wrote:

The only way to ensure he doesn't drive again and potentially kill again is to send him to prison. His age is irrelevant.

I disagree.

Prison is not a solution in cases like this, it's inappropriate and a waste of public money. We lock up far too many people who would be better handled by other means. But "lock 'em up" makes for a good headline (while doing nothing to deter others).

So you would release a man with a documented history of driving illegally into the community with only a driving ban to protect said community?

He's ignored the law before. Why give him the chance to do it again?

This man has shown complete contempt for the law.

He represents a significant ongoing risk of reoffending.

He should be locked up for public protection. Public protection is a perfectly valid reason for incarceration.

As for acting as a deterrent, I think most 80 year olds would be absolutely terrified of going to prison.

If prison worked as a deterrent then they'd be empty.

Again, many years of doing it has shown that, except in specific cases, putting someone like this behind bars is not a solution.

Slightly disingenuous reply.

If prison was a 100% effective deterrent they'd be empty.

If prison deterred any less than 100% of potential law breakers then they wouldn't be empty.

You also failed to address my main point.

The man had a track record of ignoring the law.

You'd trust him to abide by the terms of a driving ban?

I wouldn't.

A prison sentence for public protection is entirely justified in this case.

It is desperately sad isn't it, however really quite necessary. 

The fact is, he chose to drive despite knowing his eyesight was below the standard required. He did so as he thought he'd get away with it sure, but also, because he did not fear the potential consequences of his actions if not.

How often have you heard the line' he/she is so old, there really is no point sending them to jail', or 'at his/her age, any custodial sentence is a potential life sentence so not fair / valid'? The idea that our seniors don't pick up on these comments, and that this doesn't in turn influence their decison making / behaviour, is niaive to say the least. 

There has to be a valid deterrent, and something like this, should help make our society realise that its not OK to ignore laws -made to protect society- because it doesn't suit your personal situation. 

Total hyperbole, but you don't see people campaigning that Peado's have the right to maintain their sex life do you?

Compare. 32 months in jail vs "The Crown Prosecution Service has declined to take action". In both cases a cyclist died

https://road.cc/content/news/lorry-driver-killed-cyclist-after-rolling-t...

This is a rarity!  A few years back a motorist got off very lightly for killing a cyclist at a junction. He already had a dangerous driving charge under his belt!