Safe Speed Forums

You may have seen on the news recently the story of a mother and son mowed down by a car on the pavement. This was in Polegate, Sussex.

The lad was in intensive care after being airlifted from the scene, but luckily seems to be recovering, albeit from serious head injuries. The mother had her legs broken.

The driver 'lost control' on a mini roundabout (at low speed), mounted the pavement and mowed down pedestrians. The Police have decided not to prosecute because the driver has handed in her licence.

It will not surprise you to learn that this was an elderly driver. Yet another example of the misplaced sympathy given to incompetent and dangerous drivers just because of their age.

I'm not sure of the legal situation here, whether it becomes impossible to prosecute if someone surrenders their licence voluntarily, but this seems wrong to me.

We all have a duty to ensure we are safe and competent drivers and this is a prime example of when someone has not complied with that duty.

Whilst our motoring laws concentrate on compliance with arbitrary rules and not on safety, in my view it is even more important to send a message that it is each and every one of us who is responsible for our safe and competent driving ability - regardless of age.

One of the local articles is here:
http://www.eastbournetoday.co.uk/ViewAr ... ID=1983746

and people complain about bikes on footpaths...

Sounds to me like a case of locking the door after the horse has bolted!!

Oh hang on isn't that the same as Scameras?

_________________
If I have to explain you won't understand.

The serious point here is that declining fitness to drive can come on gradually with age, and may not be noriced until something like this accident happens.
Often it will be a near miss similar to the one that happened to my father in law, who failed to see another vehicle driving through an area of shadows, and almost collided with it. He handed in his licence the next day.
But for many elderly people a car is a lifeline, especially if they don't walk very well or live where there is little or no public transport. Being unable to drive may mean being unable to visit the shops or friends and relatives, so it is understandable that they may want to carry on driving for as long as they can, even though they know that their ability to do so is impaired.

Whist I agree with the sentiment, it really does come down to a matter of the greater good. Is it really acceptable to have someone on the road that is a complete liability just so they can visit friends? I do understand how much of a lifeline a car is to some elderly people, but you can't trade off the individual agaist the masses.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Are we just talking elderly here?

Could taxi firms offer an offpeak oap discount to make giving up the car a bit easier?

Or how about having an anual taxi pass similar to a bus pass that can be purchased for the same price as tax/insurance/MOT and other running costs for a year?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Where I live, no car means no care. It means not being able to get to the doctor's ten miles away or the hospital over thirty miles away. Doctors no longer make house visits and you have to go to the surgery. If you call the out of hours emergency doctor and they decide you're fit to travel, you have to attend a treatment centre twenty or miles away. You can't call for an ambulance because the telephone triage system will direct you to the emergency doctor, and hence the treatment centre. The fact you can't drive, can't afford a fifty-mile round trip by taxi, and there is no viable public transport is neither here nor there - if you don't go to the surgery or treatment centre you can't have medical care. Also, no car means not being able to get to the supermarket in the nearest town and thus not having access to food because there's no village shop.

Until NL embarked on a campaign of "care in the community", someone who lived in an outlying rural area could have a place in a care home - and thus wouldn't need a car. Unfortunately, those places are no longer available and so some elderly have a scant choice - continue driving, or die from malnutrition or lack of medical care. I really cannot blame anyone faced with such a choice for <fe>selfishly</fe> giving their own survival a high priority, particularly since there's no intent to have an accident. It isn't just so they can visit a few friends - for some, a car is a survival tool.

Going back to the incident in question. Surely the object is to get the unfit driver off the road. The driver surrenders his or her license - job done, and the driver is unlikely to return to driving as they might if given a fine and a ban of a few months! I'd say persuading someone who is unfit to drive to give up their license is much more effective than baying for retribution.

_________________
Will

Age concern to publish or explain costs of owning/running a car compared with taxis?

Having said that we run two cars even though one only does 3000 mpa and would probably do even less if we did not alternate occasionally to make sure it gets a run at least once a week. I am pretty sure it would be cheaper to just use taxis as required, I will not go into why we still have two cars except to say we have our reasons.

I have a idea that the feeling of independence must be a big factor for a lot of people.

If you surrender your licence after a serious offence, are not prosecuted and then re-apply for a new licence (take a test etc.), then your new "clean" document will not note a conviction for, say, causing death by dangerous driving because you haven't been prosecuted for it.

Ignoring the age issue, could the above happen?

Besides that, handing in your licence doesn't actually stop you driving.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Willcove.

Like I said, I DO understand, really I do, but driving is not a RIGHT. Yes, its cruel and heartless, but if you're not fit to drive then you MUST be taken off the road. It is the reponsibility of the council / local NHS whatever to make sure needs are met. Many supermarkets will deliver to your door at no extra cost providing you spend a certain amount.

As for not prosecuting? Na. A serious injury has occured because of the neglegence of another person. If I accidentally left my car with the handbrake not fully applied and it rolled away and injured someone I'd be prosecuted. I didn't do it intentionally.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Unfortunately, those needs are not met and the victims must live with the consequences. The government has meddled so much with the system that the safety net it is supposed to provide now has holes through which many the system is supposed to protect have fallen. If faced with a choice between driving while unfit, or an unpleasant death due to starvation or lack of medical care I'd choose the former. Can you honestly say you'd choose otherwise?


No they won't. No supermarket will deliver to my door - even the ones that have Internet shopping. They all deliver from the nearest store, and won't deliver outside a certain radius.


Pragmatically, do we want to enhance everyone's safety by taking the offender off the road, or do we want revenge? If the former, surely having the individual surrender their license achieves that object. They won't be able to pass another test and so will be less likely to drive again than if they were given a fine and banned for a few months. That said, I suspect that you're looking for vengeance and nothing other than prosecution will do - even if that doesn't keep the individual off the roads.

If you want to prosecute the real offenders, you could try the heartless idiots who've left the frail and vulnerable with little alternative.

_________________
Will

A ban doesn't actually stop you driving either. If someone is intent on driving, I suspect it won't matter to them whether they've been banned or have no license.

That said, I suspect that only people who are unlikely to reapply (or would find it very difficult to pass a test) would be given the choice of surrendering their license. Thus the situation you suggest probably will never arise.

_________________
Will

Compulsory retests every ten years from when you pass your test.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course driving is a right!!!!! But it's a qualified right!

I like the idea of compulsory re tests but in practical terms they'll end up costing a fortune. If it could be done in a way that didn't end up fleecing us then I'd probably be in favour.

Not only the financial side of it - how many of the sacred cows of the driving standards agency would be required - like their insistance that their method of steering(push pull) is the only way.Like could those of us that use mirrors to reverse do so on a test or be forced to look over the dreaded left shoulder.And many more.
Do a test for safety and leave out the rituals - ok, but would the DSA ????
Then again -what better way of reducing the number of cars on the road - cut the number of drivers --

I've always thought that if you believe that there should be less cars on the road, it'd be better and fairer to lose the worst rather than the poorest.

But would it -or would it be thoise that could afford it would keep on driving, not by standard ,but by wealth,being able to afford the extra tuition,just to pass.

I've had 'the conversation' with my Dad who's 73 and getting slower. He knows the day will come and appreciates I'll tell him when I think it has though it will be his call ultimately.

I raised an eyebrow at all this bleeding hearts talk of elderly people's problems being the NHS and the councils responsibility should you have to stop driving - twaddle. People will move house to get there kids into the right school, or take a better job but won't give up a home that's nowhere near buses and shops and other facilities, suddenly it's become their right and something someone else should sort out. If stopping driving is causing hardship move, like you did for the kids education, or career move, or the nice view of the country, or because the buses on the road were noisy. It's just another of life's hurdles for those concerned and their family to overcome.

Talk of driving on regardless as justified because is life or death survival is hysterical rubbish, and I'd love to hear you convince the people run over by the old lady on that one. And what about those who never had a car? They've had no choice but to live near to amenities.
If someone should take more responsibility for those giving up their cars its their family, a notion that is increasingly lost on us all. We are all to ready to leave it to the state.

I realise it's a bit simplistic as an arguement but you could write a thesis on it. Basically if you choose to isolate yourself, be it on a big suburban estate or in a country cottage, why should you expect others to sort it out. At a guess the majority of those who can run a car will have choices, its not my fault if they don't exercise them.

Oh, and driving isn't right, it's a privilige to be earned, and long may it remain so.

Barkstar - who clearly doesn't have heart but a swinging brick

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

I would not blame the mother if she thought this way. Her son was in intensive care and has suffered brain damage. She has suffered multiple injuries. However, it's not about vengeance, it's about sending the correct social message. It's not OK to drive when you are under the influence of incompetence, whatever your age.

I'm very sceptical about the 'car is my lifeline' story. The majority of elderly drivers become dangerous long before they become incapable of catching a bus. And if you can afford to run a car, you can pay for taxis - especially once the car is sold. There are many elderly people who have never driven (for example widows who were always driven by their late husbands) and they manage without driving. Let's face it, it's a convenience to which the elderly driver has become accustomed. There will always be the rural elderly who are further away from local services and more does need to be done to protect their wellbeing, but this applies to those who do not drive as well as those who should not be driving. In the vast majority of cases, there is a plan that can be made with public and private transport, taxi, friends, neighbours and relatives. Clearly these elderly drivers agree, because they are quite prepared to hand in their licence once they have maimed someone.

The bottom line is that there is no justification for an incompetent driver endangering others.

I would point out that in this recent case, the driver was not making any sort of necessary trip and had in fact driven all the way from Bexhill.

This is not an uncommon occurrence in this part of the World. Sussex has a high proportion of retirees. A friend recently had his elderly neighbour reverse out of his drive opposite, through his (closed) garage door, through the back wall and into the living room, smashing his car in the process. He pressed the accelerator instead of the brake and 'froze' on the pedal. My friend and his partner were 10 minutes earlier working underneath their kit car in the drive. They would surely have been killed had they not come in for a cup of tea. He also avoided prosecution by handing in his licence, even though his son had been trying to persuade him to give up for years. For him to carry on until he caused considerable damage is at best irresponsible. A local garage has 3 times in a year had elderly drivers go right through the car wash, out the other side and into the garage wall when they 'pressed the wrong pedal'. The elderly woman who last year turned right onto the railway line at Beddingham, mistaking it for a cross-roads was not prosecuted and continues to drive.

If you are not safe to drive then you should not drive - it is as simple as that and age is not a mitigating factor.