age shouldn't matter

[husky03]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090402/tuk-driver-93-banned-over-biker-death-6323e80.html

[SoulKiss]

We must campaign to stop this Pensioner on Pensioner violence !!!!

To the streets of London !!!!

[keithd]

i may say something controversial here....

this annoys me more than the death of somebody killed by a drink driver or a kid joy riding. im really struggling to explain why, and im even contemplating not clicking on "reply"...maybe not more than but certainly as much as... its just so unavoidable. nothing but pride made that old man continue to drive i feel sure, reluctance to let the freedom driving gives him go.

[dizzyblonde]

So he should have been treat like anybody else. Age shouldn't matter. KeithyD has a point, where it could be his only freedom etc, but on the same token up until 6 months ago my bike was my only freedom too, if he'd have knocked me off would we say the same thing..

..oh but he's an old man he should have his freedom?

I was coming home from Squires on the M62 in the dark last night. Not overly keen about riding down sections that aren't lit. So on nearing the exit I needed, after over taking a fair few cars, I decided that the left lane was empty enough to just cruise along to the exit. There was one solitary car in that lane, and at 60mph I was gaining on it far too quickly for my liking, I practically got in his boot and pushed it quicker! I over took the old blighter going at about 45-50......it certainly makes me wonder how some older people are allowed to stay on the road.

My old grandad, bless him, had 50 yrs of no claims( I kid you not) the insurance company thought he was fibbing when he renewed inhis final year on this planet. He'd driven tanks in the war, repaired motorcyles for the troops...alsorts, but he never ever caused an accident, it was blatently obvious that his driving ability was perfectly fine at 79 yrs old. I think that there should be more stringent tests for the over 70s.

[Luckypants]

Yeah, to some degree words fail me. I totally agree with all that KeithD put. When my mum became incapable of driving safely, it was very hard for us (the children) to point this out, but she accepted with good grace and gave up the car.

I agree there should be more stringent tests on those over 70. It should also be the duty of family to point out when they are no longer capable.

I guess the admission of guilt saved him from jail, because that is one hell of a fine!

[Ceri JC]

"Many elderly drivers were not honest in filling in the forms, they said, and that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents wanted "serious consideration" for a system of compulsory medical checks for older drivers."

Pfft! Try "Almost without exception, every elderly driver with a medical condition that in some way effected their ability to drive were not, and never will be, honest in filling in the forms, ..."

Take the licence off them at 65 and make them reapply for it. Mandatory retests every 3 years (including eyesight, reaction speed, etc.) You've had the lion's share of your life, don't end mine in its prime. The old boy who had me off my bike wasn't capable of driving and I'm convinced it was his age that was directly responsible for this. As far as I'm aware, despite injuring me and refusing to cooperate with the insurers, he was never even given any points. As KeithD says, if it had been a teenager, people would be calling for more stringent controls on youngsters in cars. Just because they're old pensioners are treated as Holy Cows in this respect.

[anna]

I understand the points made.

If this person had been 27 what would the outcome have been?

[Luckypants]

If this person had been 27 what would the outcome have been?

Do you mean the age of the perpetrator or the victim?

[dizzyblonde]

The old boy who had me off my bike wasn't capable of driving and I'm convinced it was his age that was directly responsible for this. As far as I'm aware, despite injuring me and refusing to cooperate with the insurers, he was never even given any points. .

This is something that irritates me. A close friend got knocked off a customers bike two years ago. Not only was the baffoon not wearing his glasses when he knocked my friend off, but he didn't co-operate very well either. He got off with a fairly light fine....my friend lost his business, has had numerous operations to correct the damage done, is still waiting for the case to pay out, is living on the bread line.....all for the sake of a Mr.Magoo old timer, that wasn't looking where he was going

[anna]

Do you mean the age of the perpetrator or the victim?

The perpetrator, I acknowledge that recent judgements have been a "pull a ticket from this magic hat" approach, but I sincerly dont know what the penalty would be for this offence.

Internet google shows

The maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is a 14-year jail term. Other options include an unlimited fine, a minimum two-year driving disqualification and penalty points 3-11.

[Gazza77]

Take the licence off them at 65 and make them reapply for it. Mandatory retests every 3 years (including eyesight, reaction speed, etc.)

Agreed. However, let's also make it compulsory for all drivers to have an eye test at least every couple of years. It's not just the "old" drivers that are blind.

[Ed]

It may be that it's the inadequacy of the report.

But I don't see an apology. The man's demeanour in the photo of him arriving at court is not one of a repentant and apologetic person.

I feel for the family of the man he killed. What a tragedy. I think that this man should have been jailed, 93 or not. As Anna said - had he been 27, he would be in jail now.

[anna]

Another bit of Google (obviously I´m not certain of it´s accuracy) shows that:-

"For careless and inconsiderate driving there is a £2,500 maximum fine (the government currently wants to raise this to £5,000). Disqualification is at the court's discretion and it can impose penalty points."

It sounds to me as if the penalty this man received was closer to careless and inconsiderate driving then causing death by dangerous driving. :confused:

[Luckypants]

I understand the points made.

If this person had been 27 what would the outcome have been?

The perpetrator, I acknowledge that recent judgements have been a "pull a ticket from this magic hat" approach, but I sincerly dont know what the penalty would be for this offence.

Internet google shows that it is 3-11 points for DD ??

Here are the sentencing guidelines.. http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/transport-law-blog/2008/01/causing-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving.html. As you can see it can be up to 5 years in jail. I suspect that the plea of guilty saved prison time, or alternatively the judge did not want to risk him dying in prison and so gave a whopping fine.

An old biddy round here did a similar thing and was done for Without Due Care and Attention - 12 month ban.

It really depends on the mood of the judge, which is what makes me so mad about sentencing.

[Luckypants]

It sounds to me as if the penalty this man received was closer to careless and inconsiderate driving then causing death by dangerous driving. :confused:

He was done for Causing Death by Careless Driving, not Dangerous.

[MiniMatt]

Would he though? Death by Careless Driving is far less a charge than Death by Dangerous Driving. Ultimately we've probably all been guilty of carelessness before and what results from that is down to luck as much as anything else.

I've often wondered about this as I kinda think that the result of an action should be less important in sentencing than the intent behind it. If I intentionally ram another road user off the road and cause them to break their leg I should get a hefty sentence - if I carelessly change radio station whilst approaching traffic lights and run into the back of someone, who then gets pushed into the stream of traffic and dies - should I get a harsher sentence?

There are definitely a handful of incidents where I've been careless, I've completely failed to see a red traffic light on at least 2 occasions in the last 15 years and driven/riden straight through. Both very late at night, both in industrial estate areas, both resulted in nothing other than me going white as a sheet, pure luck that no-one else was coming.

On the story I think it's interesting (other than that he wasn't charged with dangerous driving) that there is no mention that the individual in question was unfit to drive through poor eyesight/reactions whatever - it's heavily implied and perhaps even to be expected. Just though it interesting that it wasn't mentioned (don't know if other news outlets have covered in more depth tho).

EDIT: "Would he?" refers to the proposition that if he were 27 he'd be in jail by now

[anna]

So from that I can gather that he was actually given the maximum sentence available to the judge?

It seem´s to send highly mixed messages out to people, especially considering jail sentences handed down other road users who did not cause death?

[Ceri JC]

I've often wondered about this as I kinda think that the result of an action should be less important in sentencing than the intent behind it. If I intentionally ram another road user off the road and cause them to break their leg I should get a hefty sentence - if I carelessly change radio station whilst approaching traffic lights and run into the back of someone, who then gets pushed into the stream of traffic and dies - should I get a harsher sentence?


IMO, no. I think you should generally punish the crime rather than the outcome, in which chance plays such a great part. I'd settle for: 2 year ban with mandatory retest at the end, whacking great fine and a review of the way we allow the elderly in general on the road.

[Ceri JC]

So from that I can gather that he was actually given the maximum sentence available to the judge?

It seem´s to send highly mixed messages out to people, especially considering jail sentences handed down other road users who did not cause death?

+1. I am constantly gobsmacked when I read about people going to jail merely for exceeding a very general, arbitary speed limit which bears no correlation to what is actually safe, when there are situations where people who actually cause death through actions they clearly knew to be reckless (that female doctor's u-turn across a dual carriageway to save 5 minutes, for example) and which broke a far greater number of traffic rules, get points and a fine.

[husky03]

It seem´s to send highly mixed messages out to people, especially considering jail sentences handed down other road users who did not cause death?

Think you've hit the nail on the head there Anna.

also there should be a review of everyones ability to drive every few years.

anyway enough of that i'm off to watch the mrs have a baby:)

[Dan]

anyway enough of that i'm off to watch the mrs have a baby:)

Never mind, the .Org will be here when she's finished.











Congratulations!

[anna]

anyway enough of that i'm off to watch the mrs have a baby:)

:thumleft::thumleft: good luck to her and congratulations to you both.:thumleft::thumleft:

[Leopard_lily]

I was involved in an accident where an 81 year old dear got in the wrong lane at traffic lights. He was wanting to turn right but was in the lane to go straight on. I was on the opposite side of the road. the lights turn green and he smacks into me. He failed an eyesight test and had his licence revoked, bless him though - he was very upset he had hurt me.

I think that there should be some sort of a review of an elderly persons licence that once they reach a certain age, their GP has to sign them fit, but at what age and how often that should be???? not sure as each individual is different.

[Luckypants]

I think that there should be some sort of a review of an elderly persons licence that once they reach a certain age, their GP has to sign them fit, but at what age and how often that should be???? not sure as each individual is different.

They have to self-certify they have no medical conditions that affect their driving at 70 and then every three years. If they put down anything on the form, then they need a medical - hence many (most) do not put anything on the form.

[Leopard_lily]

I guess realistically it would be vitually impossible that rather than rely on self certification that it be mandatory a doctor should sign them as fit at 70???

[Ed]

My mum had a mini stroke when she was 71. That was enough. The doctor wrote to DVLA and they revoked her driving licence. She was upset about it for sure but she made other arrangements, and the world didn't come to an end.

[Alpinestarhero]

We must campaign to stop this Pensioner on Pensioner violence !!!!

To the streets of London !!!!

to the RBS headquaters!!!

[Sally]

Age does matter..

If that was a younger driver(>25~) we would be made examples of, given quite harsh penalities because of the majority boy racer types..

Were faced with stupidly high insurance costs, if we are involved with a collision its because we were speeding/being dangerous..

Seen a old lady driving her micra today... Was shocking, i didn't feel she was fit to drive..

Stricter tests/refresher courses should be compulsurary(sp) all through the age groups, not just targeting the older generation, alot younger drivers could do with the extra training...

[Biker Biggles]

I dont think its got anything to do with being 70 or even 93.Theres good and bad drivers in all age groups(ask insurance companies)but there is a strong case for regular medical checks and even retests for all motorists of all ages.

[Biker Biggles]

Thinking about it I once had an interesting encounter with a coffin dodger coming round a roundabout the wrong way,but Ive had a helluva lot more incidents and near misses with numpty drivers who are anything but elderly.Bit of stereotyping going on here perhaps????

[svrich]

I see the whole thing like this:
Drink/drug driving is down to not having the control or reaction speed to be safe on the road. Surely, although very individual, getting old reduces you reaction times and puts you in the same position as a drink/drug driver?
I think a medical at 70, another after 3 years then, two, then every one. Being able to drive is a privilege and not a right, especially when the lives of others are put at such risk.

Quite some time ago, when I lived with my parents, I biked down to the local shops. I watched in amazement as an old bloke very slowly, and just about, managed to park. He then took ages to get out, held on to the roof, and shuffled down to the boot. He then got out two walking sticks and shuffled over to the shops, looking like a zombie skier!
There was no way on earth that he would have had the reaction times or mobility to check blind spots etc and be classed safe to drive. I was stunned to see it unfold before me, and stayed well away from the car ever time I saw it in the village.

[Ceri JC]

Thinking about it I once had an interesting encounter with a coffin dodger coming round a roundabout the wrong way,but Ive had a helluva lot more incidents and near misses with numpty drivers who are anything but elderly.Bit of stereotyping going on here perhaps????

Accident stats last year debunked the "women are safer than men" myth by looking at accidents in relation to age. Effectively, young men are so much more dangerous that they skew the stats for all men, whereas the majority of men are actually safer. This is because comparatively early on (some point in the late twenties) men become safer than women and continue to improve at a rate much faster than women (who made only marginal improvements in their safety throughout their driving lives).

Although not the main point of the study, another trend that it showed up was that we get progressively safer in terms of less involvement in numbers of accidents per miles driven from when they start driving, up to the age of 55. Thereafter, they get worse and worse every year. The reason being the rate of the inevitable deterioration in reaction times, eyesight, hearing, etc. exceeds the benefits in terms of attitude, patience and aversion to take risks brought on by the "mellowing" effect of ageing and the gained experience of all the additional driving.

[timwilky]

My mother lost her licence last year as she is now registered blind, I had no idea her eyesight was failing she had never told anyone. She even drove to the doctors to be told her problem was irreversible and that she (the doctor) was advising the DVLA that her eyesight was so poor that she must not drive.

Being old does not necessarily mean you will be a poor driver. I know one local 80 yr old coffin dodger who still rides a blade/zzr600 and a tiger cub and he will happily do 2-300 miles in a day safely. I know others in their teens/20s/30s etc that are not fit to be on a push bike never mind a bike/car.

We trust people to be honest about their ability to drive, most knowing that loss of a licence will mean loss of independence will of course lie.

Back to the original post. Does this guys age matter. No. He should have at least been given the appropriate sentence. It would then be down to the discretion of the prison authorities as to how this guy then serves out his sentence where his age would then be an appropriate factor.

[Ceri JC]

Being old does not necessarily mean you will be a poor driver.


Nor does being young. Personally, I've never had a car accident, despite the stats suggesting that from the very high mileage I was doing during the age when I was statistically most at risk, I should of had at least two. Hardly seems fair I still paid more insurance during that time than someone in their thirties in the same car who had actually had two accidents, does it? Unfortunately, the best we can do is base our restrictions and requirements on general trends for a given age. The alternative, appraising each driver individually, would cost us far more than the additional claim costs of just letting these people continue on the road. It's for this reason that I'm against mandatory retesting for everyone every three years as the burden of this would be too great (particularly given the new test requirements). It's not really worth doing for the young anyway as they get better every year, so it makes sense to target the one group who generally get worse every year (even if they are still fit to drive), the elderly.


We trust people to be honest about their ability to drive, most knowing that loss of a licence will mean loss of independence will of course lie.


...but we see time and time again that they can't be trusted. It's perfectly understandable as to why this this happens, too: The significant loss of freedom to the individual is far greater than the benefit (marginal increase in their own safety), to them personally. It's to society as a whole that the benefit of them being off the road outweighs the downsides. That's why the onus shouldn't be on the individual, but on a representative of society (doctor, driving test examiner, etc.) to determine whether or not they're fit to drive.

[MiniMatt]

..but we see time and time again that they can't be trusted. It's perfectly understandable as to why this this happens, too: The significant loss of freedom to the individual is far greater than the benefit (marginal increase in their own safety), to them personally. It's to society as a whole that the benefit of them being off the road outweighs the downsides. That's why the onus shouldn't be on the individual, but on a representative of society (doctor, driving test examiner, etc.) to determine whether or not they're fit to drive.

Ok I know I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it (it's a habit of mine.... :rolleyes:) but I'd suggest there may be room to argue the benefit to society versus the loss of freedom to the individual. I live in a retirement village, most folks round here have fifty years on us, and they all potter their little nissan micras to the shops (which are a five minute walk away but for old legs + shopping that's too much) and to church. They all drive no faster than 20mph and to be fair there's only one stretch of road on the route where I'll do 30mph. Their reaction times are doubtless measured with calendars rather than stopwatches but they go so slow most things likely to "jump out" at them will have had at least 15 minutes warning of their impending presence and if the worse does happen then a 20mph micra hopefully does less damage than a 40mph neon underlit Max Power Corsa. They never venture out of the village because the roads are too scary for them - to the point that when the water got cut off with the floods a couple years ago I was driving to the water handout place (which was only a further mile away) to collect all their water.

Anyway, I suspect that most if not all of them are unsafe to drive, that most if not all would fail a driving test, and most if not all would fail an eyesight test. But they're self limiting, they don't go out on the roads where quicker reactions and more potential obstacles and suprises lurk. Now, the benefit to society if we took all their licences away would be minimal - the cost however would be huge - we'd now need a veritable army of social workers and care assistants delivering their groceries and shuttling them to and from church and Women's Institute meetings.

[redbouy]

Cars kill far more people than guns.
If you pick up a gun and it kills some one, even when you dont mean to. Jail
Get in a car and kill some one,...
while you are drinking/telling off the kids/ill/ old/on the phone, you have a deadly weapon and handling it incorrectly... slap on the hand, a fine, jail only at the very most.

Time we changed the car, any thing that has proved to kill on a regular rate, to a deadly weapon.[truck,plane,train]
[Jetskis are now classed as a deadly weapon in the BVI's]

[yorkie_chris]

Nobody knows if this old boy had anything he needed to report to the DVLA. Or if he's just another blind tw4t of a car driver, whether that be due to medical loss of eyesight, or choosing not to use it as in the case of most ROWV/SMIDSY type accidents.

I am truly disgusted by cases where people have lost their liberty through a victimless crime, while others can kill and receive only a mild punishment.

[timwilky]

How about this one that did had defective eyesight, even being treated and did not think he was a liability (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166184/Pensioner-banned-driving-caught-doing-10mph-shopping-trip.html)

[shonadoll]

This is something that irritates me. A close friend got knocked off a customers bike two years ago. Not only was the baffoon not wearing his glasses when he knocked my friend off, but he didn't co-operate very well either. He got off with a fairly light fine....my friend lost his business, has had numerous operations to correct the damage done, is still waiting for the case to pay out, is living on the bread line.....all for the sake of a Mr.Magoo old timer, that wasn't looking where he was going

I've got pretty minor short sightedness, but never ride/drive without glasses, My instructor told me if you pass your test wearing them, you must legally wear em while driving.