# Van driver knocks bike over with child in bike seat, and drives over the bike.



## Arjimlad (7 Mar 2018)

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/van-driver-knocked-down-dad-1306659

Comments from the driver or his pals making excuses !

A feeble sentence IMHO


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (7 Mar 2018)

IMO he should never be allowed to drive again. However, the saddest part for me is this quote from the dad:

"The “very angry” father is now considering buying a second car to get around, a court heard."

Another cyclist forced off the road by an inconsiderate moron driver.


----------



## Cycleops (7 Mar 2018)

Agreed, a pathetic sentence.


----------



## Sixmile (7 Mar 2018)

Horrendous. He's happy enough for his solicitor to say he has no sight in his left eye as if to say, 'anything I hit to the left of me isn't my fault'. Regardless, the bike was on the right, he hit it and knew about it. Then with a little faux remorse he shows his selfish nature again, 'I'll lose me job...', 'I need my license', 'it's all about me me me'.

I can't help but feel for the father, no doubt he'd have had family members telling him that he was reckless to go cycling with his child in the seat and now he'll have to bear their 'I told you so' comments too. My in-laws have always been against me taking the kids out on the bike but I can say the trips with the rear seat and subsequently the trailer, have been some of the best rides I have had and probably will ever will have.


----------



## raleighnut (7 Mar 2018)

They should at least have ordered a re-test before allowing him to drive again ffs


----------



## MontyVeda (7 Mar 2018)

car-centric society : 1
cycists : 0


----------



## benb (7 Mar 2018)

"both Mr Squires and his son were wearing cycle helmets"
Phew!

"Tippett told a probation officer he had not realised a child was on the bike"
The implication being that he thinks his behaviour would have been acceptable if it was only the adult who he nearly killed


----------



## KneesUp (7 Mar 2018)

If he feels that the lack of sight in the left eye is in any way a mitigating factor, he shouldn't be allowed to drive until he can see with both eyes again. i.e. never.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Mar 2018)

Nice to hear the judge refuse his request to keep his licence:
"You may lose your job. So be it. You are not safe driving."

More of this please!


----------



## Tizme (7 Mar 2018)

I can only agree with glasgowcyclist. If only every Judge/Magistrate said the same!


----------



## Drago (7 Mar 2018)

What an utter nodder.


----------



## MontyVeda (8 Mar 2018)

User said:


> Blind in one eye but still thinks he’s OK to drive... sounds familiar.


I'm not sure the driver's visual disability is the issue here... does being blind in one eye automatically disqualify one from driving?


----------



## sheddy (8 Mar 2018)

perhaps it should do - can one safely judge distance without stereoscopic vision ?


----------



## User10119 (8 Mar 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> I'm not sure the driver's visual disability is the issue here... does being blind in one eye automatically disqualify one from driving?


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/visual-disorders-assessing-fitness-to-drive#monocular-vision
Guidance here for medical professionals assessing fitness to drive.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Mar 2018)

sheddy said:


> perhaps it should do - can one safely judge distance without stereoscopic vision ?



Stereoscopic vision only really helps judge short distances - within the reach of your hands say.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Mar 2018)

sheddy said:


> perhaps it should do - can one safely judge distance without stereoscopic vision ?



Driving like a twat was the problem, not his eyesight


----------



## Profpointy (8 Mar 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> I'm not sure the driver's visual disability is the issue here... does being blind in one eye automatically disqualify one from driving?



No it doesn't


----------



## jefmcg (8 Mar 2018)

Wow. The victim has commented on the story. 


> I was stationary at a T junction, looking to turn right. I had waited for 10-15 seconds for a vehicle coming from the right to pass, when the van struck me from behind, pushing us forward into the road. I assume he was not looking forward, or was looking left approaching a junction. I was not overtaking anybody. He then turned right at the T junction to escape and his rear right wheel drove over the bike and my son's car seat. There were 4 independent witnesses, he was stopped 2 minutes after the incident and told to return to the scene of the crime, and didn't. I also understand he failed to attend his first 6 requests for interview, and didn't turn up to his original hearing last week, after which a warrant for his immediate arrest was issued.
> 
> 
> So, not that great a character.


----------



## simon.r (8 Mar 2018)

I have had very poor sight in one eye since birth and have been told by opticians that I may have difficulty judging distances. 

I don’t believe this is the case as I am used to judging distances with, in effect, one eye. I suspect that if someone suddenly lost vision in one eye it would take them some time to adjust and that in the adjustment period they may have difficulty.


----------



## simon.r (8 Mar 2018)

User said:


> ...to see far greater restrictions where there is a physical issue which may impair someone’s ability to drive safely: whether this is related to vision, mobility/range of motion, medication etc.



I agree entirely with you, but I consider that having vision in only one eye does not, in many cases, impair someone’s ability to drive safely (or to do anything else safely).


----------



## Drago (8 Mar 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> I'm not sure the driver's visual disability is the issue here... does being blind in one eye automatically disqualify one from driving?



No. Indeed, you can hold a commercial pilots licence, provided the remaining eye works well enough. Mrs D is blind in one eye, and periodically (it was 3 years, but now every 5 in Mrs D's case) her GP has to re-certify her as fit to drive, and makes his recommendations to the DVLA. In Mrs D's case she quickly learned to compensate for the lack of depth perception. However, she will not drive in foul weather such as heavy rain, fog or snow, as she feels that her brain receives insufficient visual information upon which to safely judge distances.

Mrs D is an ex police driver, more highly qualified and experienced than I am, and as a retired Class 1 myself I judge her driving as excellent. It's certainly better, safer, and more skilled than most of the 2 eyed muppets that inhabit our roads.


----------



## Drago (8 Mar 2018)

Indeed. There seems to be little correlation between the number of functioning eyes on has, and one's inherent levels of muppetry.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Mar 2018)

Although this collision took place to the driver's right side (his good eye) I am still very concerned at the vastly reduced peripheral vision a monocular driver has.
This is reinforced by the mitigation from the guy's solicitor which suggests had the victims been to the nearside it would have been explainable (perhaps even excusable).

"In mitigation, solicitor advocate Mike Wynter said that Tippett is blind in his left eye but acknowledged that Mr Squires and his child were to his right."


----------



## simon.r (8 Mar 2018)

Drago said:


> Indeed. There seems to be little correlation between the number of functioning eyes on has, and one's inherent levels of muppetry.



FWIW I’ve driven cars and/or ridden motorbikes for 38 years (guesstimate 760k miles) with, in effect, one eye. 

In that time I’ve had one very minor ‘at fault’ collision (running into the back of a car in stop / start traffic in the early 90’s) which didn’t result in any damage or injuries. 

I’m not claiming to be the best driver in the world, but I do think my anecdotal evidence (and @Drago ’s) supports the point that only having sight in one eye does not, in itself, make a person a poor driver.


----------



## simon.r (8 Mar 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Although this collision took place to the driver's right side (his good eye) I am still very concerned at the vastly reduced peripheral vision a monocular driver has.
> This is reinforced by the mitigation from the guy's solicitor which suggests had the victims been to the nearside it would have been explainable (perhaps even excusable).
> 
> "In mitigation, solicitor advocate Mike Wynter said that Tippett is blind in his left eye but acknowledged that Mr Squires and his child were to his right."



I’m astonished that was offered in mitigation. IME turning one’s neck to look around is an effective solution to the reduced peripheral vision on one side. (Although in my case I am not totally blind in one eye and I do, to some extent, pick up things that are happening in my ‘bad’ eye’s peripheral vision).


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Mar 2018)

simon.r said:


> only having sight in one eye does not, in itself, make a person a poor driver.



I wasn't suggesting it made anyone drive poorly, my concern is that there is a substantial reduction in peripheral vision which cannot be fully compensated for. 

This reduces the driver's ability to react to movement nearby and to his blind side. His standard of driving, i.e. car control, compliance with relevant signs and laws etc. may be to an acceptable level but his lost peripheral vision puts others in that zone at greater risk. 
The driver cannot react to what he cannot see.


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I wasn't suggesting it made anyone drive poorly, my concern is that there is a substantial reduction in peripheral vision which cannot be fully compensated for.
> 
> This reduces the driver's ability to react to movement nearby and to his blind side. His standard of driving, i.e. car control, compliance with relevant signs and laws etc. may be to an acceptable level but his lost peripheral vision puts others in that zone at greater risk.
> The driver cannot react to what he cannot see.


But surely if someone can pass the driving tests, they have proven to the required standard that they can compensate well enough for their physical condition?

Possibly the tests should be stricter and standards higher but that's another discussion. Simply rejecting one-eyed people for not having two eyes rather than testing their ability smells too much like illegal discrimination to me. I think I'm much more worried about lethal stupidity than number of eyes.

Then again, this driver and their lawyer should probably hang their head in shame for raising an irrelevant condition in mitigation. They've done equality campaigns no favours there.


----------



## fixedfixer (8 Mar 2018)

Sad that so many people just 'drive off'. The penalty for doing so should be a life time ban. + one for the judge not letting the 'employment' card be used.


----------



## Drago (8 Mar 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Although this collision took place to the driver's right side (his good eye) I am still very concerned at the vastly reduced peripheral vision a monocular driver has.
> This is reinforced by the mitigation from the guy's solicitor which suggests had the victims been to the nearside it would have been explainable (perhaps even excusable).
> 
> "In mitigation, solicitor advocate Mike Wynter said that Tippett is blind in his left eye but acknowledged that Mr Squires and his child were to his right."



It requires different observation drills, and once properly managed in that way presents no problem. If we're honest, the average driver has 2 working eyes, but possesses virtually no skills or discipline when it comes to observation. Having compromised eyesight, but using it to its fullest extent is a lot more effective than having normal eyesight but not bothering to use it properly, which is what the average drivers does.

In this case, the twottie's mitigation is in fact an unwitting admission that he has not developed the skills to permit him to overcome his disability safely.


----------



## RoubaixCube (8 Mar 2018)

> Apologetic Tippett told a probation officer he had not realised a child was on the bike, and he was worried about being late for work and losing his job.



Crocodile tears. If he had actually felt any guilt and remorse he would of stopped regardless of who was on that bicycle.

Being late for work does not mean that i can legally run people (Child or adult) over and drive off.

He should of been given the choice of jail time or losing his license. Scumbag


----------



## Time Waster (8 Mar 2018)

6 weeks after passing my driving test in the first attempt I went on a RoSPA driving safety course for no other reason than it seemed a good idea, my dad paid for it and I got to drive my parents car for a bit longer before they knocked me off the insurance. Added bonus was that the course insured us to drive other people's cars with their permission so I got to drive a large engined rover (was a while ago).

My biggest take from that course was that despite passing my test with flying colours and being described as a good driver I really didn't observe that many of the potential hazards I encountered driving. The driving test and lessons leading to them did not adequately teach hazard awareness. I believe this is part of the current test but how many are driving who passed before it was brought in? 

IMHO a one eyed driver is likely to compensate for the loss of one eye by using his / her good eye more efficiently. By that I mean learn to become more observant. If you can't observe a hazard you are putting yourself or others at risk. It's likely to be the observation not the physical sight of it that determines safety.

To put it into a cycling framework. I own a recumbent and before I got it ppl on cycling forums who used similar bikes / trikes all said it's likely to be safer riding them than uprights because drivers notice you because you're an unusual object on the road. The opposite of this argument is that there will be accidents where drivers saw uprights but didn't acknowledge it. As in observation failure.

I don't know if this is true but I'd love to see research on observation of hazards and the differences between two samples of fully sighted and single eyed drivers. It could be a very simple test on a simulator. Get a big enough sample set you could get good results / research out of it.


----------



## simon.r (8 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5175827, member: 45"]As long as a driver has informed the DVLA (DVSA?) of their impairment, and had confirmation from them that they are permitted to drive, and have also informed their insurance company who have accepted the risk, then that's fine. If they've not done any of these things then they are knowingly driving illegally and are uninsured and shouldn't be on the road.[/QUOTE]

No need to inform DVLA if you have monocular vision (for car / motorbike licences). 

https://www.gov.uk/monocular-vision-and-driving

Edit - assuming you meet the required standards of vision.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Mar 2018)

sheddy said:


> perhaps it should do - can one safely judge distance without stereoscopic vision ?



my understanding, as explained to me by a PhD physicist whose speciality was 3d imaging, is that binocular vision helps judge distances for close up things - picking things up, or watch repairing, and the like, not relatively far away things like when you're driving.


----------



## Time Waster (8 Mar 2018)

At least you don't have to shut one eye to take aim!


----------



## Drago (8 Mar 2018)

[QUOTE 5176145, member: 259"]I have (pretty much) monocular vision and it helps to explain why I'm rubbish at snooker and pool. But I can still drive a car without problems, as well as doing intricate close-up work, and I'm not a bad shot with a rifle either![/QUOTE]
I left eye lead, which was always a ball ache being right handed when using long barreled weapons. The Chris Kyle 'both eyes open' is the one that works best for me.3


----------



## RoubaixCube (8 Mar 2018)

Partially sighted or not to not stop at the scene of the incident/accident is a crime and he should of received a much harsher sentence. This is nothing but a slap on the wrist. Not to mention the fact that I read somewhere (either here or on Road.cc) that didnt turn up to court or police station when summoned so many times the police had to file a warrant for his arrest and take him in while cuffed.

Do these actions sound like the come from someone who is apologetic??

Car-centric and all that guff aside our justice system is a joke. Who remembers the story about a university student who stabbed her boyfriend with a fork? The judge let her off the hook because she was under the influence of drugs at the time though she denies being a regular drug user. Ontop of that she was female and studying some PHD or degree course in some medical profession and _'Had a promising future' _(I cant seem to remember if she was a part time model as well...)

there are loads of incidents like these where people who have committed crimes where one person was either almost killed or had their lives completely changed by the injuries they received from said incident only for them to almost walk out of court scott free.

It begs the question.... What is the value of life to these people? To the judges, to the jurys as well as to those who commit these acts of crime?

We hear stories of OAPs getting stabbed to death for the £5 they had in their pockets. Yet when the perpetrators get caught and arrested nothing meaningful comes out of it. They'll probably spend a year or two in jail and they'll be out again looking for their next victim.


----------



## classic33 (9 Mar 2018)

RoubaixCube said:


> Partially sighted or not to not stop at the scene of the incident/accident is a crime and he should of received a much harsher sentence. This is nothing but a slap on the wrist. Not to mention the fact that I read somewhere (either here or on Road.cc) that didnt turn up to court or police station when summoned so many times the police had to file a warrant for his arrest and take him in while cuffed.
> 
> Do these actions sound like the come from someone who is apologetic??
> 
> ...


Equaliser?


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Mar 2018)

Drago said:


> I left eye lead, which was always a ball ache being right handed when using long barreled weapons. The Chris Kyle 'both eyes open' is the one that works best for me.3



I am left eye dominant, so I taught myself to shoot left handed. Fine with my shotguns, but not so good with an SA-80.


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2018)

classic33 said:


> Equaliser?


I thought it was one of the Grimm Brothers tales.


----------



## Drago (9 Mar 2018)

Milkfloat said:


> I am left eye dominant, so I taught myself to shoot left handed. Fine with my shotguns, but not so good with an SA-80.



Aye, hot brass in your face from the ejector port is a trifle unpleasant.


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Mar 2018)

Drago said:


> Aye, hot brass in your face from the ejector port is a trifle unpleasant.


Not to mention a cocking handle rearranging your teeth.


----------



## chriscross1966 (1 Apr 2018)

simon.r said:


> I have had very poor sight in one eye since birth and have been told by opticians that I may have difficulty judging distances.
> 
> I don’t believe this is the case as I am used to judging distances with, in effect, one eye. I suspect that if someone suddenly lost vision in one eye it would take them some time to adjust and that in the adjustment period they may have difficulty.



A while ago a medical condition saw me have about 20 procedures spread over 10 operations on my eyes, generally one side at a time. Each time it would leave me effectively blind in one eye for a week and seriously impaired on side for a further week or two after that.... I learned fairly quickly that any route I knew well was fine with only one eye, you know where everything is and you are looking far enough down the road that binocular vision doesn't really count for much (a bit, but you get used to it, especially on routes you know well)... the thing that pretty much kept me from driving during those periods was just how much of a ball-ache parking was, if I was driving my van my only real option was a double-length space i could drive through... so pretty much very late-night trips to the supermarket if absolutely necessary and that was about it, the other thing I could do was drive to work, the layout of the carpark was conducive to me getting in there easily enough and the positioning of the kerbs and fences/hedge meant I could reverse until the wheels found the kerb...I'd just park somewhere wher I had three spaces together and go forwards and back until I was lined up square on the markings..... Usefully at the time I had a completely not-on-the-road cycle route to get me to the bus stop (still do if I chose to use it, trying to do a bit more cycling is seeing me take the longer road route mostly now) and my normal method of commuting is Brompton+bus anyway.... Thankfully my immune system seems to have stopped trying to eat my eyelids.


----------



## DCBassman (2 Apr 2018)

After 8 various eye ops, I can entirely understand this. Can be amazingly frightening and frustrating.


----------

