# So it is OK to faint while driving .....



## mr_cellophane (11 Jan 2010)

even it you kill a cyclist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lled-cyclist-mother-freed-fainting-wheel.html

How can they time this so accuratly ?


> He said Johnson had not been on the phone at the time of the accident, but had made a 50-second call to her partner at home which ended two minutes and 44 seconds before the point of impact.




​


----------



## Bman (11 Jan 2010)

If this total diabolical miscarriage of justice happened to my family, I would seriously, SERIOUSLY struggle to not "Go Postal". 

This is f**king disgusting. !


----------



## Happiness Stan (11 Jan 2010)

Shows what you can get away with if you can afford a good lawyer.


----------



## ComedyPilot (11 Jan 2010)

Happiness Stan said:


> Shows what you can get away with if you can afford a good lawyer.



....or if you put your faith in the british 'justice' system


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (11 Jan 2010)

Happiness Stan said:


> Shows what you can get away with if you can afford a good lawyer.




My thoughts.

I mean, she MAY have fainted? Not - she DID faint!

Now, looking at it from the other side and outting myself in a position, if I had blacked out through no fault of my own (not driving tired, hungover, knowing I fent unwell) and I blacked out and killed someone I would feel pretty awful and I don't think anything would be gained from prosecuting.

But surely this should be established, not just a "MAY HAVE"

If the timing is right, I reckon she wasn't on a hands-free and she was fannying around putting the phone back or making sure she had ended the call. Well, she MAY have.

So why is this not being examined?


----------



## ComedyPilot (11 Jan 2010)

If she 'did' faint, then we ought to be rid of her on the roads for life. 

She killed someone FFS!!!! 

What does someone have to do to get a life ban? Drive naked through a kindergarten whilst pissed and snorting cocaine?


----------



## thomas (11 Jan 2010)

Was she accused of it due to using a mobile phone? Where as the argument was she fainted, which caused the deaths?


*IF *someone was to faint behind the wheel and kill someone then a prison sentence is not appropriate, though a medical assessment is, similar to those who have had epileptic fits. Yes, it is a terrible tragedy but in theory I could faint behind the wheel, even though I've never done in my life. 

If there is a reasonable doubt that this could of happened then the person shouldn't be found guilty of dangerous driving. It just goes against our legal principles.

However, from the article it sounds like this was a good excuse, with the justice system not wanting to put the effort in to try and dispute the claims.


----------



## bauldbairn (11 Jan 2010)

Unbelievable!  As some of the comments have said after the article - surely this woman must be banned from the road for life(with her medical history)? 

I hope the lawyer can sleep at night after pursuing this line of defence(I'm sure he can £££'s). 

 There hasn't been justice for the victims family at all! 

A jail sentence is the minimum you would expect with an incident like this.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Jan 2010)

Not the first time

This does raise the question about "fitness to drive". If this was a "fit" then she would be unable to drive until full medical investigation and a year free of any recurrence.

Is it too much to hope that this will be applied in this case.

One hopes the Doctor inthis case has followed his legal duty to inform DVLA and have her licence revoked whilst she is investigated.


----------



## bauldbairn (11 Jan 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> One hopes the Doctor in this case has followed his legal duty to inform DVLA and have her licence revoked whilst she is investigated.



Here's hoping!


----------



## darkstar (11 Jan 2010)

What a horrible story. Even if she did faint she should be banned from driving for life. Not safe on the roads.


----------



## Tollers (11 Jan 2010)

Erm. Actually. I feinted once along commercial road and crashed into the car in front of me. This was driving home from a consulting job after a stressfull week. I was suffering shirtness of breath from massive coughing fits (only sometimes). Only the people who saw it occasionally happen believed me and a few months later i managed to get myself signed off work, but until the doctor finally agreed i had a choice of keep driving or lose my job/house/life!

Seriously, it's not so cut and dry. If work/GP had taken me seriously from day 1, i wouldnt have crashed, and wouldnt have been driving at all.


----------



## darkstar (11 Jan 2010)

Tollers said:


> Erm. Actually. I feinted once along commercial road and crashed into the car in front of me. This was driving home from a consulting job after a stressfull week. I was suffering shirtness of breath from massive coughing fits (only sometimes). Only the people who saw it occasionally happen believed me and a few months later i managed to get myself signed off work, but until the doctor finally agreed i had a choice of keep driving or lose my job/house/life!
> 
> Seriously, it's not so cut and dry. If work/GP had taken me seriously from day 1, i wouldnt have crashed, and wouldnt have been driving at all.



When someon looses Their life as a result it's a bit different though, isn't it?


----------



## Tollers (11 Jan 2010)

darkstar said:


> When someon looses Their life as a result it's a bit different though, isn't it?



How would it be any different? It could have been that a little old lady walked out in front of me. Would i then deserve to lose my license


----------



## darkstar (11 Jan 2010)

_if a full medical _


Tollers said:


> How would it be any different? It could have been that a little old lady walked out in front of me. Would i then deserve to lose my license



if a full medical shoes the need fir a full ban, then yes. There is no suggestion this woman Is undergoing any sort of examination. It's just a case of, 'oh I probally just fainted, so I'll get on with my life now, thanks'


----------



## spikebadd (11 Jan 2010)

*slf*



ComedyPilot said:


> ....or if you put your faith in the brit ish 'j ustice' system


jake burns top bloke


----------



## Plax (11 Jan 2010)

I think they should certainly take her licence off her on medical grounds for the time being, and if she hasn't fainted in X amount of time let her have it back, or however the DVLA works things like this. I suspect she hasn't been banned from driving so that would be better than nothing.

I find it hard to believe that she didn't know whether she fainted or not. I've become quite adept at fainting after giving blood and I have always felt it coming on, and usually have sufficient time to say something like "I think I'm going to faint" to the nurse before I do.


----------



## GrasB (11 Jan 2010)

Tollers said:


> How would it be any different? It could have been that a little old lady walked out in front of me. Would i then deserve to lose my license


In a situation like that if it's a viable defence I'd expect a suspension of the driving licence on *medical grounds* for a medically reasonable period, certainly not something which should be seen as a black mark on the persons driving record. IMHO it'd be a tragic accident & one that would be very hard to avoid.

I seem to remember being told something like 1 in 5 people have a one time unexplained blackout or seizure in their life, happens once & never happens again.


----------



## thomas (11 Jan 2010)

Plax said:


> I find it hard to believe that she didn't know whether she fainted or not. I've become quite adept at fainting after giving blood and I have always felt it coming on, and usually have sufficient time to say something like "I think I'm going to faint" to the nurse before I do.



It's probably a bit different after ending up going into a lamp post. I'm sure that alone would knock you back for a minute.


----------



## Tollers (11 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> In a situation like that if it's a viable defence I'd expect a suspension of the driving licence on *medical grounds* for a medically reasonable period, certainly not something which should be seen as a black mark on the persons driving record. IMHO it'd be a tragic accident & one that would be very hard to avoid.
> 
> I seem to remember being told something like 1 in 5 people have a one time unexplained blackout or seizure in their life, happens once & never happens again.



Hasn't happpened to me in 4 years! If i'd had my license suspended, i'd almost certainly have lost my job within the week. Unexplained things DO happen and the british (or any) medical system isnt quick to diagnose.

I'm with you that i think it's a tragic accident and i wouldnt condemn without medical advice.


----------



## Crankarm (11 Jan 2010)

It seems bizarre the vehicle travelled along a verge for 50m before hitting Mrs Corless, then Mr Corless, then a Peugeot and then a lamp post on the roundabout and at no time did witnesses see brake lights at the rear .

Maybe she Tracy Johnson was using or texting on her mobile, looked up, hit what she thought was the brake pedal hard, but was actually the accelerator , ploughing into the two cyclists, car and lamp post, finally coming to a stop, jumping out and saying "What was that all about?"  Or she did faint and her foot froze rigid down on the accelerator and she woke up just as the car came to rest. Hmmmmmm......convenient.

At the very least her license needs to be temporarily revoked preventing her driving pending further investigation. There is sufficent doubt in her fitness to drive.

And she's admitted using a mobile phone whilst driving..............surely Johnson should have been found guilty of this and fined heavily, shouldn't she ?

I hope her Range Rover was tested to see if it could have been faulty causing the collisions?

You would have thought if Tracy Johnson were fully fit, at some point, when either the vehicle's path become erratic or on colliding with the cyclists or the other car, she would have applied the brakes hard as a reflex action? Bizarre ....

I don't know. These types of cars are pretty powerful so if the accelerator was floored by mistake how far would the RR travel before the brakes could be applied? Far enough to take out 2 cyclists, crash into another car and drive onto a roundabout colliding with a lamp post. I would have thought a RR Sport would demolish a lamp post. Frightening.

I don't think TJ will now get insurance to cover her unless she fronts by driving on another policy as "any driver" such as on a company policy. Could prove very expensive for her insurer.

RIP Mrs Corless and sympathies to the Corless family. Truly terrifying.

Johnson should have at least been fined ££££££ for admitting using a mobile phone whilst driving. Awful awful.

There is no justice so bad as in the UK where it is held up to be a model of fairness to other imperfect judicial systems.


In an unrelated incident I saw an exact same vehicle this evening a RR with huge alloys being driven in a total tw*tish manner negotiating some tight S-bends as the snow has almost gone here. The tw*t at the wheel must have been travelling at about 45-50mph the RR leaning right over as if it was going to topple. Ice was forming on the road surface making it rather slippery as temp was -1C. I suppose he thought I have 4WD so can drive like a total c**t. 

So owners of huge 4x4s return to their old ways now the snow has almost gone .


----------



## Crankarm (11 Jan 2010)

Tollers said:


> Hasn't happpened to me in 4 years! If i'd had my license suspended, i'd almost certainly have lost my job within the week. Unexplained things DO happen and the british (or any) medical system isnt quick to diagnose.
> 
> I'm with you that i think it's a tragic accident and i wouldnt condemn without medical advice.



Well medical advice has been sought and the medical alternative profered by Tracy Johnson has been accepted by CPS as the likely reason for this dreadful series of collisions and thus the prosecution is dropped. Had this medical opinion not been provided or not believed then Tracy Johnson would be looking at being tried for causing death by dangerous driving. As the CPS has dropped the case against her because of the medical evidence this surely then casts doubts on Tracy Jonhson's fitness to continue driving. She shouldn't be able to have it both ways - avoid being prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving and keep her license having claimed the cause of the collisions was due to her fainting. This is totally outrageous if this is the case.

Why o why have the CPS chickened out yet again preventing a jury from deciding on the evidence? Yet another very unsatisfactory case where a killer driver avoids prosecution.


----------



## al78 (11 Jan 2010)

I know of someone at my bridge club that blacked out at the wheel and ended up in a ditch. She was told not to drive again for a certain period of time but she decided to stop driving permamently (although she went back to driving after a year or so).


----------



## sheddy (11 Jan 2010)

Do we know how long she was driving for before the crash ? - possibly fell asleep at the wheel ?


----------



## al78 (11 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> And she's admitted using a mobile phone whilst driving..............surely Johnson should have been found guilty of this and fined heavily, shouldn't she ?.



No, she was using the phone up until 2 minutes and 44 seconds before the impact. It is entirely possible that she wasn't driving at this time, this is not stated in the article.


----------



## Crankarm (11 Jan 2010)

sheddy said:


> Do we know how long she was driving for before the crash ? - possibly fell asleep at the wheel ?




Yes, a possiblity. The guy who caused the Selby train crash in 2001 fell asleep at the wheel of his 4x4 towing a trailer, driving off the M62 motorway and down an embankment on to the railway line causing a train to collide with his vehicle killing 10 people . He had been driving for a rediculously long time and hadn't slept the night before as he had allegedly been talking and sending numerous sexy obscene texts to a lady he'd met on an internet dating agency 8 days before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2001/selby_train_crash/default.stm


----------



## irc (11 Jan 2010)

It does happen. I know of one case where a driver had a heart attack at the wheel and the car went off the road and through a fence into a field.

In this case the coincidence of her "fainting" just after finishing a phone call raises doubts but for a criminal conviction the burden of proof is fairly high.

I'd be interested in how accurately the time of the accident was established. Was it by the time a 999 call was logged? Was it taking a guess by deducting a couple of minutes from the time of a 999 call?

Was she texting or looking for a phone number after her previous call finished? 

It won't do anything for the cyclist here but I'd like to see automatic bans for anyone caught using a handheld mobile whilst driving. Given the risk of being caught is so low the penalty if a driver is caught needs to hurt and £60 and 3 pts doesn't.


----------



## Crankarm (11 Jan 2010)

al78 said:


> No, she was using the phone up until 2 minutes and 44 seconds before the impact. It is entirely possible that she wasn't driving at this time, this is not stated in the article.



Are these times call times ie times actually on calls? A mobile phone can still used even if a call isn't being made.

Does a mobile actually record when it is being operated but NOT necessarily when it's being used to make a call or sending a text to some one? She could have been merely sorting through her messages/texts, but not necessarily sending a text or chatting to any one thus it may not record this as no call was being made or text being sent ? 

If this is the case and she had made a call whilst driving then finished this but continued to use her phone sorting through her messages/address book then she may well have still been concentrating on it and not on the road ahead. There may have been a serious miscarriage of justice if this is the case and I believe a perverting of the cause of justice. She simply did not see the cyclists and the changing road layout and conditions ahead as she was looking and concentrating on her mobile, perhaps composing a text, which when she subsequently came to a halt and began to realise what she had done, she deleted. Would the phone necessarily record this latter type of usage? Could it be established whether the phone was on or not ie when you call a mobile phone that is off, you get a message saying the phone is off, leave a message or call later. Surely the phone network provider would confirm whether her phone was actually on or off, in addition to call times and frequencies, am I right?


----------



## Bromptonaut (11 Jan 2010)

Fullest sympathy to the bereived family but sometimes these things happen. The linked report is from the Daily Wail so objectivity and comprehensive reporting of the facts are out of the question.

Cannot see anything in the report about current situation with defendant's DL, but my expereince is that DVLA err on side of caution. Mrs Bromp's cousin passed out at work about 16 months ago. I don't know the full facts/results of medical tests, although there was some suggestion of epilepsy, her licence was suspended for a year pending a re-occurence. When I worked with people who'd had brain injuries the same safety first DVLA response was to be expected.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

Bromptonaut said:


> Fullest sympathy to the bereived family but sometimes these things happen. *The* *linked report is from the Daily Wail so objectivity and comprehensive reporting of the facts are out of the questio*n.
> 
> Cannot see anything in the report about current situation with defendant's DL, but my expereince is that DVLA err on side of caution. Mrs Bromp's cousin passed out at work about 16 months ago. I don't know the full facts/results of medical tests, although there was some suggestion of epilepsy, her licence was suspended for a year pending a re-occurence. When I worked with people who'd had brain injuries the same safety first DVLA response was to be expected.



Strange the DM is the only national I can find that has carried and updated this awful case. What ever vitriol the DM deserves it doesn't seem to be warranted in this case. The only other paper I can find carrying an update beyond the initial collision in September 2008 is the local Warrington Guardian which carries a tribute to Sharon Corless on the anniversary of her death.

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/4659250.Family_of_Sharon_Corless_say_her_memory_lives_on/


The BBC and Manchester Evening News carried it when it occurred.

So on this occasion it would seem all credit to the DM for updating the case. It doesn't seem too far off the mark in it's reporting.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

Here is the story of another cyclist killed by a 4x4 driver. On this occasion it was a Mitsubishi Shogan, co-incidentally happening about the same time as the death of Sharon Corless, in September 2008.

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/2449494.0/?act=complaint&cid=1911601


----------



## Rhythm Thief (12 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Are these times call times ie times actually on calls? A mobile phone can still used even if a call isn't being made.
> 
> Does a mobile actually record when it is being operated but NOT necessarily when it's being used to make a call or sending a text to some one? She could have been merely sorting through her messages/texts, but not necessarily sending a text or chatting to any one thus it may not record this as no call was being made or text being sent ?
> 
> If this is the case and she had made a call whilst driving then finished this but continued to use her phone sorting through her messages/address book then she may well have still been concentrating on it and not on the road ahead. There may have been a serious miscarriage of justice if this is the case and I believe a perverting of the cause of justice. She simply did not see the cyclists and the changing road layout and conditions ahead as she was looking and concentrating on her mobile, perhaps composing a text, which when she subsequently came to a halt and began to realise what she had done, she deleted. Would the phone necessarily record this latter type of usage? Could it be established whether the phone was on or not ie when you call a mobile phone that is off, you get a message saying the phone is off, leave a message or call later. Surely the phone network provider would confirm whether her phone was actually on or off, in addition to call times and frequencies, am I right?



That's all well and good. As long as you bear in mind that you've made it all up, with very little justification, that's fine.
It's certainly possible that she could have just blacked out behind the wheel. It happens, often with no warning whatever. I know of at least one lorry driver it's happened to.


----------



## mangaman (12 Jan 2010)

Tragic story and not clear from the Mail that we have the whole story, but the law on driving is clear (see DVLA website)

Legally if you faint at the wheel you have to inform the DVLA and stop driving.

It's not clear why the doctor in this case says she may have fainted or if she's been through medical tests that suggest this.

If you faint behind the wheel and a cause is found and treated you can legally drive again after 4 weeks.

If no cause is found you may be able to drive after 6 months.

It's legally up to the driver to inform the DVLA and up to the DVLA exactly how long the licence should be revoked


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> That's all well and good. As long as you bear in mind that *you've made it all up, with very little justification*, that's fine.
> *It's certainly possible that she could have just blacked out behind the wheel. It happens, often with no warning whatever*. I know of at least one lorry driver it's happened to.



And you haven't RT ................... made it all up based purely on anecdotal evidence .

Just one lorry driver eh. I thought you were going to refer us to a learned and trusted body of medical research highlighting numerous cases.

I wonder if the medical opinion that was provided was supported by evidence from her GP or a local specialist showing a history of fainting? Or alternatively the opinion came from a "specialist" on a list of "specialists" defence solicitors use? It would seem awful co-incidence for the Corless family if this woman has never fainted before and never faints again in her life and so gets her driving license back after one month or some similarly short time .


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2010)

I think we need to remember that this is a Daily Mail report. Accuracy is not its forte... Also we do not know the medical evidence which, for all we know, may strongly indicate that she had fainted. Also we do not know if she did stop driving following the incident or not. She may well have, and the DVLA may well have suspended her licence for a time. 

Of course discussion of incidents like this are important, but we have to remember that we don't have all the facts upon which to base our assertions.

Terrible tragedy of course.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

mangaman said:


> Tragic story and not clear from the Mail that we have the whole story, but the law on driving is clear (see DVLA website)
> 
> Legally if you faint at the wheel you have to inform the DVLA and stop driving.
> 
> ...



I would think there would be an awful lot of people contacting DVLA regarding the fitness of Johnson to drive....... Don't DVLA officials read the DM? Or would the CPS/Cheshire Police have automatically informed them?


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

magnatom said:


> I think we need to remember that this is a Daily Mail report. Accuracy is not its forte... Also we do not know the medical evidence which, for all we know, may strongly indicate that she had fainted. Also we do not know if she did stop driving following the incident or not. She may well have, and the DVLA may well have suspended her licence for a time.
> 
> Of course discussion of incidents like this are important, but we have to remember that we don't have all the facts upon which to base our assertions.
> 
> Terrible tragedy of course.



Magna the DM comes in for a lot of criticism and rightly so for many of it's articles, but on this one it is the only National newspaper carrying the story AFAICF and on the face of it it's reporting seems no different from how any other newspaper would report such a case had they chosen to do so. If anything it has been more restrained than usual so I think the gibes at the DM are unjustified on this occasion. It is after all an horrific case involving 2 cyclists - one killed and the other seriously injured, another car whose occupants were also in collision with the RR and a lamp post.

If it wasn't for the DM this case may have disappeared into the ether.


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Magna the DM comes in for a lot of criticism and rightly so for many of it's articles, but on this one it is the only National newspaper carrying the story AFAICF and on the face of it it's reporting seems no different from how any other newspaper would report such a case had they chosen to do so. If anything it has been more restrained than usual so I think the gibes at the DM are unjustified on this occasion. It is after all an horrific case involving 2 cyclists - one killed and the other seriously injured, another car and whose occupants were also in collision with the RR and a lamp post.
> 
> If it wasn't for the DM this case may have disappeared into the ether.




No jibes, just suggesting that we need to exercise caution. Would you agree that we don't have all of the facts, and, that it is *possible* that the case for fainting could be strong? Certainly strong enough to introduce the required doubt?


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

magnatom said:


> No jibes, just suggesting that we need to exercise caution. Would you agree that we don't have all of the facts, and, that it is *possible* that the case for fainting could be strong? Certainly strong enough to introduce the required doubt?



And I refer you to my initial comments above. Of course you are not the sort of person not to read a whole thread before you comment .

Indeed it is bizarre and horrific chain of events. She may have fainted as one alternative. But also bear in mind she was facing some pretty serious charges and possibly a spell in prison so it maybe in her interests to try to avoid this. We have an adversial legal system. The CPS have decided not to put the case before a court as they think her medical evidence will create enough doubt to make a guilty verdict unlikely.

However, I re-iterate, it would seem an awful co-incidence for the Corless family if this woman has never fainted before and never faints again in her life and avoids a causing death by dangerous driving prosecution and so gets her driving license back after one month or some similarly short time if it has actually been suspended.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

Maybe the rules or laws for drivers who black out/faint at the wheel should be changed so as they cannot get back behind the wheel so easily or cannot drive unaccompanied.


----------



## MartinC (12 Jan 2010)

This is what I posted on the the CTC forum in response to the newspaper article. It bears repeating here.

"My brother had a similar incident a year or so again. No damage to anyone or his car - he just stopped at the end of his road. He had a series of neurological exams (without any conclusion - just elimination of the possible causes) and it was months before he was allowed to drive again.

Given that the police were involved at the outset of this case it's extremely likely that this woman has been through the same process. On the face of it then it seems likely that it's a genuine case - there will have been proper medical examination and the reported facts of the incident (e.g. no brake lights) are consistent.

So it's not that easy a loophole to go through. We all feel desperately for the family of the person killed. Knee jerk condemnation isn't appropriate. Bear in mind too that if you read the article properly you'll understand that there is a 1 in 2 chance that you'll have a reflex syncope at some time. Hopefully it'll be in a situation that doesn't hurt you or anybody else.

Driving is a dangerous activity that carries risk and we should do all we can to minimise or remove it. Unfortunately it's hard to see what could have been done in this case."


----------



## magnatom (12 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> And I refer you to my initial comments above. Of course you are not the sort of person not to read a whole thread before you comment .



Oh I am when when the posts are a little too detailed and ranty...


----------



## Amanda P (12 Jan 2010)

irc said:


> I'd like to see automatic bans for anyone caught using a handheld mobile whilst driving. Given the risk of being caught is so low the penalty if a driver is caught needs to hurt and £60 and 3 pts doesn't.



A point I've been banging on about for years.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

MartinC said:


> This is what I posted on the the CTC forum in response to the newspaper article. It bears repeating here.
> 
> "My brother had a similar incident a year or so again. No damage to anyone or his car - he just stopped at the end of his road. He had a series of neurological exams (without any conclusion - just elimination of the possible causes) and it was months before he was allowed to drive again.
> 
> ...



Has there been any knee jerk condemnation other than for her poor choice of vehicle?

What medical research puts the chances of having such a black out as 1 in 2? Surely this cannot be correct as we would see many more collisions of this nature if this was true?

Driving is a lawful activity which becomes unlawful when done negligently, carelessly, recklessly or dangerously.


----------



## MartinC (12 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Has there been any knee jerk condemnation other than for her poor choice of vehicle?
> 
> What medical research puts the chances of having such a black out as 1 in 2? Surely this cannot be correct as we would see many more collisions of this nature if this was true?
> 
> Driving is a lawful activity which becomes unlawful when done negligently, carelessly, recklessly or dangerously.



I think people expressing displeasure at the acquittal and lack of penalties counts as condemnation, so yes.

The quoted article contains "It is a common condition and occurs in roughly half of all individuals during their lives.". The DM doesn't source that but it seems consistent with what the neurologists told my brother. Your extrapolation from this to a number of expected collisions needs a bit more work e.g how many are there and how many should there be for a start.

If you think having a reflex syncope while driving is negligent, careless, reckless or dangerous then explain to me how you're going to prevent it happening to yourself.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

MartinC said:


> I think people expressing displeasure at the acquittal and lack of penalties counts as condemnation, so yes.
> 
> The quoted article contains "It is a common condition and occurs in roughly half of all individuals during their lives.". The DM doesn't source that but it seems consistent with what the neurologists told my brother. Your extrapolation from this to a number of expected collisions needs a bit more work e.g how many are there and how many should there be for a start.
> 
> If you think having a reflex syncope while driving is negligent, careless, reckless or dangerous then explain to me how you're going to prevent it happening to yourself.



Condemnation does not equal knee jerk reaction.

I suppose if I had one on my bike then I am most likely only to hurt or kill me .........

I think you are so riddled with prejudices it is difficult having a discussion with you, so I won't .


----------



## mangaman (12 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> I would think there would be an awful lot of people contacting DVLA regarding the fitness of Johnson to drive....... Don't DVLA officials read the DM? Or would the CPS/Cheshire Police have automatically informed them?



No - it's her that has the responsibilty to inform them

If she's been barred from driving by a doctor, the doctor is not legally allowed to tell the DVLA except under exceptional circumstances (eg if she continues to drive against medical advice).

Even then the process is not simple as it involves breaching the doctor/patient confidentiality.

Certainly Daily Mail readers can't just ring the DVLA and ask about someones's fitness to drive.


----------



## marinyork (12 Jan 2010)

mangaman said:


> No - it's her that has the responsibilty to inform them
> 
> If she's been barred from driving by a doctor, the doctor is not legally allowed to tell the DVLA except under exceptional circumstances (eg if she continues to drive against medical advice).
> 
> ...



I wouldn't be quite so quick to say that, the DVLA find out about quite a few cases and people are banned, almost always for 12 months. That said there are quite a few epileptic people who seem to get away with it somehow and are out there driving. My mother has a lifetime ban from driving (she's not the only person I know in this situation) and people are very aware that if there's anything wrong with you it's 12 months to life so they'd rather keep things hush.

I don't really know what crankarm is on about as there are a fair number of cases where they have a one off black out, are looked at and concluded it won't happen and banned for 12 months. That's pretty standard. You could argue that the system in place is too harsh.


----------



## MartinC (12 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Condemnation does not equal knee jerk reaction.
> 
> I suppose if I had one on my bike then I am most likely only to hurt or kill me .........
> 
> I think you are so riddled with prejudices it is difficult having a discussion with you, so I won't .



The condemnation seemed not be that considered so although 'knee jerk' is slightly perjorative is stiil seems appropriate. Remember too that I said that this was a quote of something I'd posted in another thread on another forum you might find is doesn't relate exactly to this thread. 

I understand your reply to mean that you don't drive and that's how you can be sure it won't happen to you. Are you saying that the only way to cope with this eventuality is to stop everyone driving or do you have a more useful answer.

I'm still looking forward to your analysis of the number of these accidents we should expect.


----------



## mangaman (12 Jan 2010)

marinyork said:


> I wouldn't be quite so quick to say that, the DVLA find out about quite a few cases and people are banned, almost always for 12 months. That said there are quite a few epileptic people who seem to get away with it somehow and are out there driving. My mother has a lifetime ban from driving (she's not the only person I know in this situation) and people are very aware that if there's anything wrong with you it's 12 months to life so they'd rather keep things hush.
> 
> I don't really know what crankarm is on about as there are a fair number of cases where they have a one off black out, are looked at and concluded it won't happen and banned for 12 months. That's pretty standard. You could argue that the system in place is too harsh.



I never said people drive when they aren't supposed to, I agree that's very common - I just pointed out the legal side.

Most simple faints don't get a driving ban. Here is the relevant bit from the DVLA. This woman would fit into category 3 as the syncope caused injury - so if they've found and treated a cause she would be banned for 4 weeks / if not she would be banned for 6 months 

"1. Simple Faint
Definite provocational factors with associated prodromal symptoms and which are unlikely to occur whilst sitting or lying.
Benign in nature.
If recurrent, will need to check the “3 Ps” apply on each occasion (provocation/prodrome/postural).
(If not see Number 3 below).

No driving restrictions.

DVLA need not be notified.

NB Cough Syncope see Chapter 7
No driving restrictions
DVLA need not be notified

2. Loss of consciousness/ loss of or altered awareness likely to be unexplained syncope and low risk of recurrence.
These have no clinical evidence of structural heart disease and a normal ECG.

Can drive 4 weeks after the event.
NB Cough Syncope see Chapter 7
Can drive 3 months after the event.

3. Loss of consciousness/ loss of or altered awareness likely to be unexplained syncope and high risk of recurrence
Factors indicating high risk:
(a) abnormal ECG
( clinical evidence of structural heart disease
(c) syncope causing injury, occurring at the wheel or whilst sitting or lying
(d) more than one episode in previous six months.
Further investigations such as ambulatory ECG (48hrs), echocardiography and exercise testing may be indicated after specialist opinion has been sought.
**for Pacemakers see Chapter 2

Can drive 4 weeks after the event if the cause has been identified and treated.

If no cause identified, licence refused/revoked for 6 months."


----------



## marinyork (12 Jan 2010)

I know what the relevant DVLA stuff is (why wouldn't I, I know quite a few people who've had bans). The point is they've been over applying this, we both know that people out there get longer than 6 month bans. I'm afraid your description of it gives it very much the impression of being far more lenient than it is in practise.

I'd add that the DVLA guidelines are more like how things should be.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

marinyork said:


> I don't really know what crankarm is on about as there are a fair number of cases where they have a one off black out, are looked at and concluded it won't happen and banned for 12 months. That's pretty standard. You could argue that the system in place is too harsh.



See my post,



Crankarm said:


> Maybe the rules or laws for drivers who black out/faint at the wheel should be changed so as they cannot get back behind the wheel so easily or cannot drive unaccompanied.



To my mind if some one faints, blacks out whilst driving then the presumption is that they should NOT be allowed to drive again unless they can establish that the cause of the black out will not recur. The consequences are too serious to allow drivers who have a pre-existing disposition to losing consciousness to continue driving. A leathered drunk driver is treated more severely with a lengthy ban for the safety of other road users. Whilst drink driving is a self inflicted choice and blacking out is generally not, the consequences can be just as devastating as the instant case has shown, if of course, she did faint.

I think a 3-5 year suspension of her license would be sufficient time to determine whether her condition was likely to recur given the loss of life and injury that she has caused on this occasion. She may never faint again in her life even if very surprising, shocking or stressful situations which would be remarkable.


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

mangaman said:


> I never said people drive when they aren't supposed to, I agree that's very common - I just pointed out the legal side.
> 
> Most simple faints don't get a driving ban. Here is the relevant bit from the DVLA. This woman would fit into category 3 as the syncope caused injury - so if they've found and treated a cause she would be banned for 4 weeks / if not she would be banned for 6 months
> 
> ...



So hopefully she could have her license suspended for 6 months. Presumably if the cause is found, it could be treated and any conditions imposed on her wrt driving.

As I stated above perhaps the rules need to be toughened up as some one who has fainted, killing and seriously injuring people should not IMHO be allowed to drive again in such a short time putting other road users at risk.

Anyway I don't think any insurer would ensure her certainly not without substantial medical evidence. Insurers are the people to have this sort of information as they are indemnifying policy holders. The instant case will cost her insurers a lot of money so they might refuse to continue to insure her, hopefully.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (12 Jan 2010)

Sorry, am I simply being thick when I say that she could have simply fallen asleep at the wheel, couldn't she? 

Isn't it her who is suggesting that she fainted, rather than any witness? (not that you could tell the difference from simply seeing it, I would suspect) 

Are we to expect that in future if people fall asleep at the wheel they can simply say that they fainted and supply this as a test case to get off scot free?

Very sad, and clearly something was amiss (no brake lights etc.) but to let her off really opens up a loophole which can easily be exploited as far as I can see...


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> Sorry, am I simply being thick when I say that she could have simply fallen asleep at the wheel, couldn't she?
> 
> Isn't it her who is suggesting that she fainted, rather than any witness? (not that you could tell the difference from simply seeing it, I would suspect)
> 
> ...



Indeed. It is possible, although she was using her mobile phone shortly before. If her defence is copied by another killer driver seeking to get off CDBDD then it would be a disturbing development in bastardy.

But Gary Hart who caused the Selby train crash in 2001 causing the death of 10 people fell asleep at the wheel of his 4x4. He got 5 years in jail and will now have been out for several years....... unlike the 10 people who died and their families who are no doubt still suffering.


----------



## MartinC (12 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> I think a 3-5 year suspension of her license would be sufficient time to determine whether her condition was likely to recur given the loss of life and injury that she has caused on this occasion.



I think the DVLA have fairly rigorous, medically derived criteria for assessing the likelihood of recurrence of the various medical conditions and ensuring that people don't drive while this risk is present.

What's very difficult to predict is the first occurrence of these conditions. Given the time it takes for cases to come to court it's probable this woman has already been through the process of not being allowed to drive until it's medically safe for her to do so. An arbitrary 3-5 ban for her won't prevent it happening to me, you or somebody else.

There are some possible mitigations for the risk of these incidents but they don't involve blaming people for illness.

Someone elsewhere has suggested that we could reduce excess risk by reducing the weight of vehicles we permit. You don't need 2 1/2 tonnes of Range Rover to get about so why allow the risk it creates for others.

Having a transport policy that didn't rely on solely on the private car is another. More public transport, cycling and walking would mean be less drivers doing less miles and thus less risk. It also makes the loss of a driving licence less of an arbitrary punishment.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 Jan 2010)

For me, the most compelling evidence in this case is that witnesses reported seeing no brake lights at any time.

Anyone who has a collision is going to instinctively hit the brakes if they are conscious. This woman has hit a cyclist, then a car, then a lamp-post and *still* not touched the brakes.

I certainly hope she'll receive a medical ban and that the cause will be investigated by doctors.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (12 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> And you haven't RT ................... made it all up based purely on anecdotal evidence .
> 
> Just one lorry driver eh. I thought you were going to refer us to a learned and trusted body of medical research highlighting numerous cases.
> 
> *I wonder *if the medical opinion that was provided was supported by evidence from her GP or a local specialist showing a history of fainting? Or alternatively the opinion came from a "specialist" on a list of "specialists" defence solicitors use? It would seem awful co-incidence for the Corless family if this woman has never fainted before and never faints again in her life and so gets her driving license back after one month or some similarly short time .



See, you're doing it again. You're making stuff up.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (12 Jan 2010)

magnatom said:


> No jibes, just suggesting that we need to exercise caution. Would you agree that we don't have all of the facts, and, that it is *possible* that the case for fainting could be strong? Certainly strong enough to introduce the required doubt?



Certainly strong enough to justify not making up aload of bollocks about it as Crankarm seems to be delighting in doing.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (12 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> I think you are so riddled with prejudices it is difficult having a discussion with you, so I won't .


----------



## mangaman (12 Jan 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> For me, the most compelling evidence in this case is that witnesses reported seeing no brake lights at any time.
> 
> Anyone who has a collision is going to instinctively hit the brakes if they are conscious. This woman has hit a cyclist, then a car, then a lamp-post and *still* not touched the brakes.
> 
> I certainly hope she'll receive a medical ban and that the cause will be investigated by doctors.



Looking at the report it does say

'Consultant cardiologist Dr Adam Fitzpatrick produced a report in which he said she was likely to have suffered an abrupt episode of syncope at the wheel' 
so I can't believe she hasn't been through tests already.

As you say, not using the brakes at all implies she was either asleep or unconscious


----------



## lazyfatgit (12 Jan 2010)

Its not the first time someone has hit the gas pedal harder in panic, rather than the brake. This happened with someone I know (they didn't injure anyone, fortunately).


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Certainly strong enough to justify not making up aload of bollocks about it as Crankarm seems to be delighting in doing.





Rhythm Thief said:


> See, you're doing it again. You're making stuff up.





Rhythm Thief said:


> Certainly strong enough to justify not making up aload of bollocks about it as Crankarm seems to be delighting in doing.





Crankarm said:


> And you haven't RT ................... made it all up based purely on anecdotal evidence .
> 
> Just one lorry driver eh. I thought you were going to refer us to a learned and trusted body of medical research highlighting numerous cases.
> 
> I wonder if the medical opinion that was provided was supported by evidence from her GP or a local specialist showing a history of fainting? Or alternatively the opinion came from a "specialist" on a list of "specialists" defence solicitors use? It would seem awful co-incidence for the Corless family if this woman has never fainted before and never faints again in her life and so gets her driving license back after one month or some similarly short time .




Only for you RT, only for you. What would I do if I couldn't post my b0ll0cks on here for you? No one else on here has quite the wit to charm me like you do .


----------



## marinyork (12 Jan 2010)

Freak things do happen crankarm. My mother is epileptic and fell the full length of the stairs once and miraculously survived. I'm guessing you'd be one of the people that'd be saying that was clearly a load of nonsense (just like the cops would be) and that one of the members of my family had murdered her (had she died which was not an unrealistic scenario). 

These things aren't simple, if you believe the medics* my mother was driving around for over a decade whilst having fits and nobody knew about it.

*they have no evidence for this.


----------



## thomas (12 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> See, you're doing it again. You're making stuff up.





Rhythm Thief said:


> Certainly strong enough to justify not making up aload of bollocks about it as Crankarm seems to be delighting in doing.




Point is we really know very, very little so everyone should find out the real facts first .


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2010)

marinyork said:


> Freak things do happen crankarm. My mother is epileptic and fell the full length of the stairs once and miraculously survived. I'm guessing you'd be one of the people that'd be saying that was clearly a load of nonsense (just like the cops would be) and that one of the members of my family had murdered her (had she died which was not an unrealistic scenario).
> 
> These things aren't simple, if you believe the medics* my mother was driving around for over a decade whilst having fits and nobody knew about it.
> 
> *they have no evidence for this.



So attempted murder then ? Blimey!

Of course one would investigate all aspects and all propositions as to how the accident with your mother came to occur given the strength of the evidence and how these factors combined to determine whether one proposition was more likely than another given the evidence.

There was an interesting piece by Bill Bryson Giants of Science in the Times Review this weekend passed. To my delight his first choice was that of the Reverend Thomas Bayes from Tunbridge Wells the father of modern probabilty although his famous equation known as Bayes Theorem remained undiscovered until after his death in 1761. Apparently a friend sent it to the Royal Society in 1763. It is a great mathematical tool for predicting how one conditional probability (such as the probability of a hypothesis given observed evidence) depends on its inverse (in this case, the probability of that evidence given the hypothesis).

It is routinely used in forensic work and population genetics in particular mapping the frequency of genes within a population. Likewise the Theorem could be applied to the instant case to determine the likelihood of different outcomes given the evidence.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/books/non-fiction/article6979468.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem


----------



## nilling (12 Jan 2010)

mangaman said:


> not using the brakes at all implies she was either asleep or unconscious



No, it means she never pressed the brake pedal. You could also argue that she was just as likely to have hit the accelerator pedal instead. 

The family have just been on BBC Look North and they certainly don't sound like they have received any answers 

The medical experts told the court that the driver may have fainted at the wheel and therefore not in control of the car at the time of the accident. The driver has also not been stopped from driving, though the DVLA said they would be investigating.


Unforeseen fainting may now be an excuse for poor driving


----------



## Rhythm Thief (13 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> Point is we really know very, very little so everyone should find out the real facts first .



Exactly. I think.


----------



## Bman (13 Jan 2010)

All I know is that someone who killed a road user and seriously injured another, seems to have got away scott free. 

It's just not cricket!


----------



## classic33 (13 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Or she did faint and her foot froze rigid down on the accelerator and she woke up just as the car came to rest. Hmmmmmm......convenient.
> 
> At the very least her license needs to be temporarily revoked preventing her driving pending further investigation. There is sufficent doubt in her fitness to drive.



You faint, the body goes limp. In a fit the body can go rigid. Can also happen if you panic, going rigid.

If it was a fit then the driving licence should be withdrawn. She should also be informing the relevant authorities of what happenned & be surrenderring her licence


----------



## J4CKO (13 Jan 2010)

So, she had never fainted before or since but had used a mobile phone whilst driving three minutes before, now, call me cynical but I think it was probably the phone.


Finished one call and then was starting another or composing a text, too busy looking at the phone, well done love, looks like you got away with it, why not treat yourself to an even bigger car, I see drivers using phones every day, have never seen anyone faint. Range Rover Sports tend to attract selfish, aggressive, self-gratification artists, so for me the type of vehicle points toward somone who would try such a defence to get away with it rather than fess up.

I wonder if she is actually sorry ?


----------



## numbnuts (13 Jan 2010)

> Range Rover Sports tend to attract selfish, aggressive, self-gratification artists


So we are going to tar everybody with the same brush


----------



## Crankarm (13 Jan 2010)

numbnuts said:


> So we are going to tar everybody with the same brush



Seems to be about the long and short of it .


----------



## marinyork (13 Jan 2010)

J4CKO said:


> So, she had never fainted before or since but had used a mobile phone whilst driving three minutes before, now, call me cynical but I think it was probably the phone.
> 
> 
> Finished one call and then was starting another or composing a text, too busy looking at the phone, well done love, looks like you got away with it, why not treat yourself to an even bigger car, I see drivers using phones every day, have never seen anyone faint. Range Rover Sports tend to attract selfish, aggressive, self-gratification artists, so for me the type of vehicle points toward somone who would try such a defence to get away with it rather than fess up.



I will grant you that point in general that it is worrying. Unfortunately if it was the phone the precedent was already set recently on Lord Ahmed . Ended up with the most generous interpretation in history and got 12 weeks in prison, a lesser charge, was supposed to serve 6 weeks, did 16 days.


----------



## Crankarm (13 Jan 2010)

marinyork said:


> I will grant you that point in general that it is worrying. Unfortunately if it was the phone the precedent was already set recently on Lord Ahmed . Ended up with the most generous interpretation in history and got 12 weeks in prison, a lesser charge, was supposed to serve 6 weeks, did 16 days.



Yes but AFAIK Lord Ahmed pleaded guilty to the charges and apologised. The circumstances in his case where somewhat different. This woman has done neither putting the Corless family through even more distress.


----------



## MartinC (13 Jan 2010)

The most disappointing aspect of this thread is the lack of analysis in many of the responses. Posters seem to be more interested in rehearsing blame than looking at the context of what happened and what our response should be to help make our (cyclists) environment safer.

First let's recap the facts. Someone lost control of their car killing one cyclist and injuring another. The police investigated and passed the case to the CPS who prosecuted for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. Nothing to complain about there. It went to court and and the driver was acquitted because the court accepted the evidence presented that the woman had suffered a reflex syncope. Many may disagree with the verdict. I, like most here, haven't seen all the evidence but from what I've read this seems like a correct verdict to me. You certainly can't claim any lack of due process. Nor can you claim that if she did suffer the reflex syncope she was legally or morally guilty.

A reflex syncope is when your body mistakenly restricts the blood supply to your brain and you lose consciousness temporarily. Medical opinion is that this will happen to about half of us in our lifetime. You can't predict to who or when. There are other medical conditions that can strike without warning (e.g. heart attack, stroke, epilepsy) and incapacitate you. Smugly assuming that it couldn't happen to me isn't rational. The DVLA have a stringent set of medical criteria that determine when you can drive after any incapacitating attack. They're at http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/ataglance.aspx. They are all about preventing a recurrence but they can't prevent it from happening in the first place. To me they're also a far more sensible read than Joe Bloggs posting from his superficial medical knowledge. If this woman hasn't reported this to the DVLA and been through the process she's open to prosecution.

So we know that drivers can lose consciousness when driving. We have a case where this has happened resulting in a loss of life. We know that whatever we do it may happen again. It's a systemic problem, not a problem caused by driver behaviour. If our reaction to this is "she's an evil witch, burn her" then we let the system off the hook. By personalising it and making it a personal failure we avoid the need for anyone to do anything.

When we respond to this, talking amongst ourselves or too others it seem to me that a more productive approach is to say things like:

"Yes, these things happen, wouldn't it be better if people weren't driving around in a 2 1/2 tonne tanks like this when it did. Maybe we should restrict the use of unnecessarily heavy vehicles like 4x4's."

"Yes, it's appalling that we allow vehicles with really bad NCAP ratings for pedestrian safety like this Range Rover on the road when things like this can happen."

"Yes it just shows how necessary speed limits are so that these things aren't worse. Maybe the limits should be lower in urban areas."

"Yes, maybe our transport system is wrong. If there were more public transport, cycling and walking then there would be less incidents like this and lives would be saved."

If we respond intelligently to events like this the we can help the people and organisations who campaign for improvements like the above.


----------



## Crankarm (13 Jan 2010)

MartinC said:


> The most disappointing aspect of this thread is the lack of analysis in many of the responses. Posters seem to be more interested in rehearsing blame than looking at the context of what happened and what our response should be to help make our (cyclists) environment safer.
> 
> First let's recap the facts. Someone lost control of their car killing one cyclist and injuring another. The police investigated and passed the case to the CPS who prosecuted for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. Nothing to complain about there. It went to court and and the driver was acquitted because the court accepted the evidence presented that the woman had suffered a reflex syncope. Many may disagree with the verdict. I, like most here, haven't seen all the evidence but from what I've read this seems like a correct verdict to me. You certainly can't claim any lack of due process. Nor can you claim that if she did suffer the reflex syncope she was legally or morally guilty.
> 
> ...



Sorry I said I wasn't going to have a discussion with you but your last post ......................

You seem to beleive you are the only one making intelligent analysis. Well for those that take a contrary view to you were are not dumbells, reactionary or ill informed as you suggest. We may very well have the very same limited information that you are basing your comment on or even slightly more or first had experience of such a terrible collision. 

IIRC you mentioned in an earlier thread that you had a brother who had passed out at the end of his road? Well to me that suggests you have an interest and may find it difficult making an objective decision for the safety of all road users that this driver should not be allowed on the road whether because of her dangerous driving or her medical condition.

What ever your criticisms of other posters on here we have on the whole been pretty measured. Ok so her choice of vehicle is poor that's a given and her use of her mobile phone shortly before she crashed would make even a saint blush but these observations and criticisms are valid and don't deserve ridicule by you. I don't recall anyone calling her a "witch" and advocating "she be burned". 



> If our reaction to this is "she's an evil witch, burn her" then we let the system off the hook



Either you are getting confused with another post on another forum or you have a very vivid imagination......



> Someone lost control of their car



Some one did not lose control of their car - they were not in control due to their claimed physical condition



> the CPS who prosecuted for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving



No the case was not prosecuted the CPS accepted her new defence of "fainting" and took the view that prosecution would not be in the public interest as they would lose therefore wasting thousands of ££££££ on a full trial as the fainting defence would create sufficient doubt for a jury. 



> It went to court and and the driver was acquitted because the court



The submissions by the defence, consideration by the CPS and deliberation of the judge would mostly like have been made in a pre-trial hearing not at trial.



> You certainly can't claim any lack of due process. Nor can you claim that if she did suffer the reflex syncope she was legally or morally guilty.



The criticism is of her being able to proffer a fainting defence at a late stage and for this to be accepted by CPS thus negating any need for a trial meaning the defendant does not have to appear before a jury and be cross examined.



> Medical opinion is that this will happen to about half of us in our lifetime. You can't predict to who or when.



So.......... but did it happen to TJ on this occasion and will it likely re-occur given it is supposed to have happened? Has she previously fainted? Which all have major implications for her retaining her driving license. She has already killed one person and seriously injured another.

You see what I am getting at? Has the defendant actually fainted not an opinion that it may happen to half of us at some point (which I don't beleive anyway) so may well have happened to her? You could invent any scenario in this case that had a 50% chance of occuring which diverted your attention or consciousness from controlling a vehicle.



> If our reaction to this is "she's an evil witch, burn her" *then we let the system off the hook*



So you believe the system is at fault? So we do agree and your thread is a waste of time ?



> It's a systemic problem, not a problem caused by driver behaviour.



It may well be both.



> When we respond to this, talking amongst ourselves or too others it seem to me that a more productive approach is to say things like:
> 
> "Yes, these things happen, wouldn't it be better if people weren't driving around in a 2 1/2 tonne tanks like this when it did. Maybe we should restrict the use of unnecessarily heavy vehicles like 4x4's."
> 
> ...



All peripheral to the case. Surely her driving was either careless, reckless, dangerous or she was unfit for medical reasons?

The other issues you raise about cyclist safety are all laudible and very welcome but in this instance the perspective of the cyclist and other road users appears to have been forgotten.

This woman has avoided a death by dangerous driving prosecution on the grounds that she was not medically fit and SHE STILL RETAINS HER LICENSE. This cannot be right by any stretch of the imagination.

No wonder Mr Corless said he was 'mystified and bewildered' by the explanation and disappointed the case had not gone to trial.

TJ needs to have her license revoked immediately.

The roads aren't safe with her continuing to drive if she has a pre-disposition to fainting/falling asleep/being occupied by something else at the wheel as we have seen.

Are you an apologist for these types of drivers?


----------



## J4CKO (13 Jan 2010)

numbnuts said:


> So we are going to tar everybody with the same brush




Yep, I find it works when out on the road, those cars attract a certain type, like double cab pickups, I am sure some of them are lovely people but I give them a wide birth based on the ownership profile.

I think there is too much analysis and creedence give to her "condition" and my gut feel is its all bollocks, someone with no moral fibre getting away with her actions that caused a fatality, its possible she fainted, probably when she found out what she had done.

Cyclists as a group, seem to be a bit to passive and considerate sometimes, looking at all the angles and then getting run over by some selfish **** in a big stupid car who doesnt give a f*ck, who just wants to get away with it.


----------



## MartinC (13 Jan 2010)

Crankarm, it's reported (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...laims-she-may-have-fainted-while-driving.html) that the case came to trial, the court heard evidence and the judge dismissed the charges. It's over, it went to trial and the result is an acquittal. You may disagree but complaining will achieve nothing.

The question of medical fitness to drive is covered in the DVLA document. Again you can disagree if you want. They review them every 6 months so if you want to lobby for them to be changed you could see a quick result. I guess you'd need some medical evidence.

To be honest the point you make about brother strikes me as petty. As a rational person and someone who cares for him and his family I've no interest in him driving if he wasn't fit. His incident gives me 2 insights that you seem to lack. One is that these things aren't impossible and may happen to anyone. Secondly I've got some understanding of how the medical side of the DVLA process works. If it's any consolation, in my view, the rules are prescriptive and they apply them rigorously.

The reason for my post was to present an alternative way of responding to this tragic incident. Sorry that you found it boring and irrelevant but at least it provoked enough interest for you to respond.


----------



## marinyork (13 Jan 2010)

I already said all that and mangaman did but crankarm didn't listen. The problem is mangaman's well meaning posts make the DVLA process sound a lot more flimsy than it really is and crankarm picks up on this. As do a lot of the tabloid versions.

On the phone one though I think people have a point, she should be given points very much in the HH and Lord Ahmed direction (failed). Things are starting to get a bit silly now in that direction.


----------



## classic33 (13 Jan 2010)

MartinC said:


> _The most disappointing aspect of this thread is the lack of analysis in many of the responses. Posters seem to be more interested in rehearsing blame than looking at the context of what happened and what our response should be to help make our (cyclists) environment safer.
> 
> A reflex syncope is when your body mistakenly restricts the blood supply to your brain and you lose consciousness temporarily. Medical opinion is that this will happen to about half of us in our lifetime. You can't predict to who or when. There are other medical conditions that can strike without warning (e.g. heart attack, stroke, epilepsy) and incapacitate you. Smugly assuming that it couldn't happen to me isn't rational. The DVLA have a stringent set of medical criteria that determine when you can drive after any incapacitating attack. They're at http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/ataglance.aspx. They are all about preventing a recurrence but they can't prevent it from happening in the first place. To me they're also a far more sensible read than Joe Bloggs posting from his superficial medical knowledge. If this woman hasn't reported this to the DVLA and been through the process she's open to prosecution._



Not a "Joe Bloggs" posting from his superficial medical knowledge, but as a person born with & living with epilepsy. I gave the medical response, that has been given to me over the years by experts in their chosen field of medicine, to points raised. In a faint the body goes limp, whilst in a fit the body will tense up.

Don't believe the person who has to live with the condtion look it up. You could try a search on "Tonic-Clonic". Anyone else remember the scene from The Shawshank Redemtion where the closing pressure of a jaw in spasm is given?



MartinC said:


> [*If we respond intelligently to events like this the we can help the people and organisations who campaign for improvements like the above*.



Your just as guilty on this as everyone else whose answers you seem to dislike.


----------



## Tollers (13 Jan 2010)

Step away from the handbags


----------



## classic33 (13 Jan 2010)

Tollers said:


> Step away from the handbags



Not a worry on that one. 

But this is something that seems to be getting a bit more commonplace on here. Shout down the person with whom you disagree. And I'm the first to say that I'd be as guilty as the next person doing it.

What is available on here is a vast amount of knowledge from various people in one place.


----------



## Crankarm (13 Jan 2010)

MartinC said:


> Crankarm, it's reported (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...laims-she-may-have-fainted-while-driving.html) that the case came to trial, the court heard evidence and the judge dismissed the charges. It's over, it went to trial and the result is an acquittal. *You may disagree but complaining will achieve nothing*.



You agree with the decision of the CPS and court - fine, but now you rather mean spiritedly state that complaining will achieve nothing. You really are a nice person.



MartinC said:


> The question of medical fitness to drive is covered in the DVLA document. Again you can disagree if you want. They review them every 6 months so if you want to lobby for them to be changed you could see a quick result. I guess you'd need some medical evidence.



You still don't answer the main criticism that this woman is still allowed to keep her license despite claiming she fainted at the wheel of her car killing some one and seriously injuring another and drive around as if nothing had happened. Do you think this is sensible or right?



MartinC said:


> To be honest the point you make about brother strikes me as petty. As a rational person and someone who cares for him and his family I've no interest in him driving if he wasn't fit. His incident gives me 2 insights that you seem to lack.



It's not at all petty. It's a vaild point. You have a brother who I get the impression is dependent on his car for getting around. You have a conflict of interest. Many people manage quite well with out a car either through choice or necessity.

Road safety is paramount IMHO and the courts/DVLA/medical profession need a good kick in the pants to get their houses in order to close loop holes like this preventing drivers who have a history of fainting or claim they have fainted, from ever driving a car again if the cause is not properly identified and treated, and even then with restrictions and proper supervision imposed.



MartinC said:


> One is that these things aren't impossible and may happen to anyone.



There you go again. But it didn't happen to anyone did it? TJ claimed it happened to her so what medical evidence does she have for it happening to her? Simply lining up a defence of "Oh well, half the population may faint at the wheel of a car, so there is a reasonble likelihood that I could have fainted at the wheel..." in order to get the prosecution to drop the case is outrageous and sets a very dangerous precedent. How many drivers do you think will now, having been involved in serious collisions, now claim "Oh what have I done! I must have passed out!"



MartinC said:


> Secondly I've got some understanding of how the medical side of the DVLA process works.



Please enlighten us ..........




MartinC said:


> If it's any consolation, in my view, the rules are prescriptive and they apply them rigorously.



It's not a consolation. The rules maybe prescriptive but they are not applied rigorously enough. It is clear that with the instant case there are loop holes as they do not prevent drivers who pose a real risk to life from driving as Johnson is still driving around having already passed out (if indeed she did) killing one person and seriously injuring another.



MartinC said:


> The reason for my post was to present an alternative way of responding to this tragic incident. Sorry that you found it boring and irrelevant but at least it provoked enough interest for you to respond.



Actually it wasn't interest that provoked me to respond to your post but your ever so slightly dismissive and belittling attitude implying those who took issue with the outcome of this case as being unintelligent or whinging .

I don't suppose you even find the result of this case unsatisfactory or the fact that the authorities are allowing TJ to still drive around without restriction? I think the Corless family are searching for more substantial answers as to why TJ drove as she did that day and are probably still in shock at the outcome of the case.

Anyway you may or not be aware that due to the public outcry the DVLA are investigating TJ's case. I only hope she doesn't faint again whilst driving her RR Sport if her license is eventually withdrawn as she may well kill or injure a few more people in the mean time. Or maybe she will never ever faint again, ever, in her life, that would be fortuitous and co-incidence.


----------



## CopperBrompton (14 Jan 2010)

marinyork said:


> On the phone one though I think people have a point, she should be given points very much in the HH and Lord Ahmed direction (failed).


Why? There is zero evidence that she was driving at the time she made the phone call.

I don't know about you, but when I need to make a phone call when driving, I pull over somewhere safe to make the call. Once the call is over, I do mirror, signal, maneouvre and am typically driving again within 5-20 seconds of the call ending.


----------



## mangaman (14 Jan 2010)

marinyork said:


> I already said all that and mangaman did but crankarm didn't listen. The problem is mangaman's well meaning posts make the DVLA process sound a lot more flimsy than it really is.QUOTE]
> 
> I ggree we've been over this, but I still think the DVLA guidance is recommended by doctors in this area.
> 
> ...


----------



## marinyork (14 Jan 2010)

And I speak as someone who has a relative who has a lifetime ban. As I've said I've known several other people in the same boat.


----------



## marinyork (14 Jan 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> Why? There is zero evidence that she was driving at the time she made the phone call.



That's not entirely true. We have two bits of evidence that with the best possible interpretation say she was on the phone a couple of minutes before and just after. The point you're missing is the Lord Ahmed case means you can have a serious accident and all you have to do is claim it was just before your accident. Really we need to reverse some of the attitudes so that if you have an accident and there is phone activity around that time you're alarm bells ring very loudly in the same kind of way happens with drink drivers and accidents. Things need tightening up a lot in this respect.



Ben Lovejoy said:


> I don't know about you, but when I need to make a phone call when driving, I pull over somewhere safe to make the call. Once the call is over, I do mirror, signal, maneouvre and am typically driving again within 5-20 seconds of the call ending.



I switch my phone off when driving. It might be contrary to HH and Lord Ahmedism but I think this is the way to go. Someone could claim I was chewing my phone but not actually making a call on it unless there was incompetence or tampering with the records.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2010)

Long posts like that will likely never be read by others.


----------



## J4CKO (14 Jan 2010)

Did anyone record the actual time the accident happened, the phone records put it at a couple of minutes before, I doubt the two cyclists had much opportunity to check their watches and did the witnesses have coordinated and syncronized timepieces that they had time to check and note the exact time in a pocket book or perchance was it all a bit of a horrific blur and the driver just get away with being on the phone when she killed someone, or did she end her phone call whilst she was driving before the accident, well it would be unfortunate to faint during a good chinwag wouldnt it.

I am sure the legal teams have covered all this but we dont have the transcripts.

I am not a medical person but I diagnose her with "TAV", Truth Aversion Syndrome.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jan 2010)

That's my thought too - that there might easily be a time mismatch and that she was actually on the phone whilst driving.


----------



## Campfire (14 Jan 2010)

This happened in my home town, in an area which I cycle in regularly. Since it happened I have always avoided that roundabout and cycled up the road on the footpath, it's a wide one. If anyone stops me I will remind them of this 'accident'.

I agree with most people that a full investigation about the fainting should take place and her licence should be taken from her, pending the results. What would happen if they then found her fit to drive with no 'fainting' problems, could the case be recalled?

I was told that this person had the type of law firm that footballers get when they don't want to lose their licence, as she had the means to do so. 

Sleeping at night? No, I doubt if she will have trouble doing so, as anyone who would go to such lengths to avoid being punished for killing someone won't have any conscience.

It's funny that the 'fainting' attack came just after the phone call!

If she is genuinely found to have a medical problem, then that is fair enough, none of us know if we are likely to suffer from any sort of attack whilst driving.


----------



## Crankarm (14 Jan 2010)

Campfire said:


> This happened in my home town, in an area which I cycle in regularly. Since it happened I have always avoided that roundabout and cycled up the road on the footpath, it's a wide one. If anyone stops me I will remind them of this 'accident'.
> 
> I agree with most people that a full investigation about the fainting should take place and her licence should be taken from her, pending the results. What would happen if they then found her fit to drive with no 'fainting' problems, could the case be recalled?
> 
> ...



++1.


----------



## CopperBrompton (15 Jan 2010)

marinyork said:


> Originally Posted by *Ben Lovejoy*
> 
> 
> _Why? There is zero evidence that she was driving at the time she made the phone call._
> That's not entirely true.


It is in fact entirely true.



> We have two bits of evidence that with the best possible interpretation say she was on the phone a couple of minutes before


Yes, as I said, I would typically be driving 10-30 seconds after ending a call. Two minutes was _plenty _of time for her to have pulled away and be driving down the road.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Jan 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> It is in fact entirely true.
> 
> 
> Yes, as I said, I would typically be driving 10-30 seconds after ending a call. Two minutes was _plenty _of time for her to have pulled away and be driving down the road.



Ok, so expanding on your assertions, where is her evidence that she stopped and where is the lay-by or similar such parking area that she stopped in to make the call on her route that would match the time scales? I suspect this would have formed part of the evidence had she done so. There may have possibly been witnesses that saw the vehicle stopped and her inside with her mobile glued to her ear.


----------



## fossyant (15 Jan 2010)

BentMikey said:


> That's my thought too - that there might easily be a time mismatch and that she was actually on the phone whilst driving.




Only she knows, and I hope it plays on her conscience for the rest of her life if she did lie.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Jan 2010)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ...........


----------



## CopperBrompton (16 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Ok, so expanding on your assertions, where is her evidence that she stopped and where is the lay-by or similar such parking area that she stopped in to make the call on her route that would match the time scales? I suspect this would have formed part of the evidence had she done so.


No, that would form part of the evidence only in some country where defendants are required to prove their innocence.


----------



## CopperBrompton (16 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Ok, so expanding on your assertions, where is her evidence that she stopped and where is the lay-by or similar such parking area that she stopped in to make the call on her route that would match the time scales? I suspect this would have formed part of the evidence had she done so.


No, that would form part of the evidence only in some country where defendants are required to prove their innocence.


----------

