# 81 yr old MX5 driver ploughs into cyclists on A-road.



## Arjimlad (13 Jul 2018)

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/shocking-video-shows-moment-car-1773856

Scary stuff. The footage does not show injuries but shows impacts.


----------



## cisamcgu (13 Jul 2018)

Flip !


----------



## gavroche (13 Jul 2018)

Frightening.


----------



## mjr (13 Jul 2018)

I thought the penalty was a bit light (two years ban, an extended retest, 18 months conditional discharge and £20) and then I read the rider's contribution to https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-cyclechat-helmet-debate-thread.187059/


----------



## Threevok (13 Jul 2018)




----------



## rugby bloke (13 Jul 2018)

Pretty horrific to watch, hopefully the driver won't be back on the road again. Seems that the riders involved were on the road to recovery at the time of the article. I note that that the driver was not charged with leaving the scene of an accident, I would be interested to hear from those more learned in the law why this would be.


----------



## Arjimlad (13 Jul 2018)

Perhaps he returned after the video stopped.


----------



## Slick (13 Jul 2018)

20 quid victim surcharge, how did they get to that figure?


----------



## numbnuts (13 Jul 2018)

Slick said:


> 20 quid victim surcharge, how did they get to that figure?


Funny hand shake


----------



## Phaeton (13 Jul 2018)

Now all you video warriors, that WAS a close pass


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Now all you video warriors, that WAS a close pass




No. That was a collision.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Jul 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> No. That was a collision.


True, at 81, a 2 years a ban was not enough


----------



## Milzy (13 Jul 2018)

Nobody should be driving after 80. I don’t care how much you cry about it.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Jul 2018)

Milzy said:


> Nobody should be driving after 80. I don’t care how much you cry about it.


How about involuntary euthanasia are you a supporter?


----------



## Slick (13 Jul 2018)

numbnuts said:


> Funny hand shake


It looks like but apparently not. 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u.../fines-and-financial-orders/victim-surcharge/


----------



## Brandane (13 Jul 2018)

Shocking driving. And blows out of the water the often heard view of drivers that cyclists shouldn't ride 2 abreast, and that they should ride in the gutter. This group were in single file, well into the left. Which may, or may not, have had a bearing on their fate. That depends whether the driver saw them and tried to squeeze through; or just didn't see them at all (perhaps because of the low sun) and would have ploughed into them anyway.


----------



## Slick (13 Jul 2018)

Milzy said:


> Nobody should be driving after 80. I don’t care how much you cry about it.


I'm not trying to be smart, but I'm assuming you don't know many 80 year olds?


----------



## Drago (13 Jul 2018)

Holy Trump! Lord only knows how no one was killed. Awful.

It boils my wee wee how the CPS play games with charges for the sake of experience. People were injured, so they should have progressed the 'injury by charge. It's just a numbers game to them.


----------



## simongt (13 Jul 2018)

Slick said:


> I'm not trying to be smart, but I'm assuming you don't know many 80 year olds?


The driver who ran into the back of me was 87, so Mitzy has a point.


----------



## Slick (13 Jul 2018)

simongt said:


> The driver who ran into the back of me was 87, so Mitzy has a point.


Not really. I'm not saying the driver who hit you or the one in the film were or weren't fit but a bit much to say it's over for you at 80 no matter what condition you get there in.


----------



## classic33 (13 Jul 2018)

simongt said:


> The driver who ran into the back of me was 87, so Mitzy has a point.


The one that T-boned me was ten years younger than me.

The sentence passed in the courts is what needs addressing, not the age of the drivers. That's the real issue. One in which the insurance companies could help with.


----------



## Mrs M (13 Jul 2018)

I do hope the “driver” realises just what he had done and never gets behind the wheel again


----------



## swansonj (13 Jul 2018)

Slick said:


> Not really. I'm not saying the driver who hit you or the one in the film were or weren't fit but a bit much to say it's over for you at 80 no matter what condition you get there in.


We say that you can’t drive before a certain age so why not over a certain age as well? Both are just averages.

I know an 86 year old who is probably a better driver than me (he’s my father) but in view of the seriousness of what is at stake with driving (see the OP) I would have no problem with a ban on over 80s (or any other suitable, preferably evidence based, age) as a blanket measure that on average protects the public.


----------



## Milzy (13 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> How about involuntary euthanasia are you a supporter?


No.


----------



## Milzy (13 Jul 2018)

swansonj said:


> We say that you can’t drive before a certain age so why not over a certain age as well? Both are just averages.
> 
> I know an 86 year old who is probably a better driver than me (he’s my father) but in view of the seriousness of what is at stake with driving (see the OP) I would have no problem with a ban on over 80s (or any other suitable, preferably evidence based, age) as a blanket measure that on average protects the public.


Finally somebody with sense.


----------



## screenman (13 Jul 2018)

My brother was doing fast track days on a motorbike at 80, his wife stopped him doing any more after he had a big off. Not sure what that has got to do with things though.


----------



## Milzy (13 Jul 2018)

screenman said:


> My brother was doing fast track days on a motorbike at 80, his wife stopped him doing any more after he had a big off. Not sure what that has got to do with things though.


I think that is brilliant he was doing that. It's on a track though, not on public roads. I've seen lots of old people drive unsafe. They dither around making other users impatient thus inviting incidents to happen. They can't even remember the highway code & lose their glasses when they're on their head. The Mazda driver only took the two riders down because of his poor judgement due to been old.


----------



## screenman (13 Jul 2018)

Milzy said:


> I think that is brilliant he was doing that. It's on a track though, not on public roads. I've seen lots of old people drive unsafe. They dither around making other users impatient thus inviting incidents to happen. They can't even remember the highway code & lose their glasses whwn they're n their head. The Mazda driver only took the two riders down because of his poor judgement due to been old.



I do not think there is an age limit on poor judgement, I would like to see more testing though.


----------



## classic33 (13 Jul 2018)

swansonj said:


> We say that you can’t drive before a certain age so why not over a certain age as well? Both are just averages.
> 
> I know an 86 year old who is probably a better driver than me (he’s my father) but in view of the seriousness of what is at stake with driving (see the OP) I would have no problem with a ban on over 80s (or any other suitable, preferably evidence based, age) as a blanket measure that on average protects the public.


Why not a re-test instead of a blanket ban?


----------



## Milzy (13 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> Why not a re-test instead of a blanket ban?


I would agree to this if they passed a full medical check.


----------



## Slick (13 Jul 2018)

swansonj said:


> We say that you can’t drive before a certain age so why not over a certain age as well? Both are just averages.
> 
> I know an 86 year old who is probably a better driver than me (he’s my father) but in view of the seriousness of what is at stake with driving (see the OP) I would have no problem with a ban on over 80s (or any other suitable, preferably evidence based, age) as a blanket measure that on average protects the public.


So despite being a better driver than you, you want him banned?


----------



## classic33 (13 Jul 2018)

Milzy said:


> I would agree to this if they passed a full medical check.


Provided its not just applied at one end of the age scale.

That's where the courts could help. Quuestion is why don't they impose a re-test?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> Provided its not just applied at one end of the age scale.
> 
> That's where the courts could help. Quuestion is why don't they impose a re-test?




An extended retest has been ordered in this case.


----------



## classic33 (13 Jul 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> An extended retest has been ordered in this case.


I've not read the linked piece, my replies were aimed more at the stop them driving when they reach a certain age.


----------



## Drago (13 Jul 2018)

Chuck 'em in The Carousel on their 30th Birthďay!


----------



## Milzy (13 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> Provided its not just applied at one end of the age scale.
> 
> That's where the courts could help. Quuestion is why don't they impose a re-test?


It beggars belief about no retest sadly


----------



## swansonj (13 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> Why not a re-test instead of a blanket ban?



Because I think tests measure ability to drive not normal driving standard. A test would indeed filter out the old people eg whose reaction time was no longer adequate but not those whose concentration is going but who can still concentrate when they try enough for a test.

In general, I think that’s a real problem with driving tests and is why I set little store on retests after criminal offences. 



Slick said:


> So despite being a better driver than you, you want him banned?



Yes, for the reasons I gave. Thank you for reading my post correctly.


----------



## Slick (13 Jul 2018)

swansonj said:


> Because I think tests measure ability to drive not normal driving standard. A test would indeed filter out the old people eg whose reaction time was no longer adequate but not those whose concentration is going but who can still concentrate when they try enough for a test.
> 
> In general, I think that’s a real problem with driving tests and is why I set little store on retests after criminal offences.
> 
> ...


That's okay, it wasn't difficult.


----------



## dave r (13 Jul 2018)

Milzy said:


> I would agree to this if they passed a full medical check.



When we reach 70 our licences expire and we have to reapply for our licence, then we have to reapply every three years. A requirement to have a medical when we reapply should enable the ones that shouldn't be driving to be weeded out.


----------



## classic33 (13 Jul 2018)

dave r said:


> When we reach 70 our licence expires and we have to reapply for our licence, then we have to reapply every three years. A requirement to have a medical when we reapply would enable the ones that shouldn't be driving to be weeded out.


The like for the information given, not the fact you have to reapply.


----------



## snorri (13 Jul 2018)

Milzy said:


> Nobody should be driving after 80. I don’t care how much you cry about it.


I think there is a much bigger problem at the other end of the age range.


----------



## Slick (13 Jul 2018)

snorri said:


> I think there is a much bigger problem at the other end of the age range.


Exactly.


----------



## screenman (13 Jul 2018)

I think anyone who cannot do it has never done a 25tt in less than 62 minutes should not be allowed to drive a car.


----------



## Julia9054 (13 Jul 2018)

My 86 year old father in law recently drove into a parked car. He has no idea what happened and we suspect he has had a black out. A&E checked him out and discharged him. The police did not come to see him and the insurance company said he had 60 days to get another car and they would automatically reinsure him. It took a couple of weeks of nagging to help him realise that this was a bad idea and that it was time to give up driving. What if he decided otherwise? Who could make him? Totally irresponsible of the insurance company in my opinion.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Jul 2018)

screenman said:


> I think anyone who cannot do it has never done a 25tt in less than 62 minutes should not be allowed to drive a car.



Help me out screenman, I don't understand what you mean here.


----------



## Slick (13 Jul 2018)

My 17 year old self fish tailed 300 yards down a narrow street bouncing from one wall to the next before coming to a rest on an old foundation of a picture house. One girl broke ribs and jaw, I broke my ankle and slashed under my chin 9n the glass as I went through the windscreen, back seat passengers had various injuries but the police reckoned ax there were so many in jammed into the back seat it probably reduced injury. The police never charged anyone and the insurance company paid out for the written off car and everyone got on with their life.


----------



## screenman (13 Jul 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Help me out screenman, I don't understand what you mean here.



Simple, you should spend a lot of time on a bike before being allowed to drive.


----------



## Tim Hall (13 Jul 2018)

Milzy said:


> I think that is brilliant he was doing that. It's on a track though, not on public roads. I've seen lots of old people drive unsafe. They dither around making other users impatient thus inviting incidents to happen.


Other users should curb their impatience when faced with a dithering driver.



> They can't even remember the highway code & lose their glasses when they're on their head. The Mazda driver only took the two riders down because of his poor judgement due to been old.


The report I read didn't give a reason for the collision.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jul 2018)

Milzy said:


> They can't even remember the highway code & lose their glasses when they're on their head. The Mazda driver only took the two riders down because of his poor judgement due to been old.


If you actually put your prejudices away & actually looked at what happened you'll see you're talking crap.

The accident was primarily caused by the driver being far too close, because when the cyclist looks down/hits something in the road he swerves & at that point gets picked up by the car, check out the video at 28 seconds.

As to your ageism, it's interesting on this forum the gang jumps up & down about sexism, racism, misogyny & just about every other 'ism' but ageism is still fair game. There are drivers out there 80+ who are a darn sight better than some half or even a quarter of their age, age has nothing to do with driver competency, some people whatever age should never be allowed on the road in charge of a car Period.


----------



## Milzy (14 Jul 2018)

Tim Hall said:


> Other users should curb their impatience when faced with a dithering driver.
> 
> 
> The report I read didn't give a reason for the collision.


They should do but they won’t. Everyone should be retested every 5 years. It would be a nice money spinner.


----------



## Milzy (14 Jul 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> An extended retest has been ordered in this case.


I bet he’d fail then.


----------



## Milzy (14 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> If you actually put your prejudices away & actually looked at what happened you'll see you're talking crap.
> 
> The accident was primarily caused by the driver being far too close, because when the cyclist looks down/hits something in the road he swerves & at that point gets picked up by the car, check out the video at 28 seconds.
> 
> As to your ageism, it's interesting on this forum the gang jumps up & down about sexism, racism, misogyny & just about every other 'ism' but ageism is still fair game. There are drivers out there 80+ who are a darn sight better than some half or even a quarter of their age, age has nothing to do with driver competency, some people whatever age should never be allowed on the road in charge of a car Period.


I half agree with you.


----------



## Mugshot (14 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> If you actually put your prejudices away & actually looked at what happened you'll see you're talking crap.
> 
> The accident was primarily caused by the driver being far too close, because when the cyclist looks down/hits something in the road he swerves & at that point gets picked up by the car, check out the video at 28 seconds.


Absolute bollocks.
The collision (let's not call it an accident eh?) was not "_primarily caused by the driver being far too close"_, it was solely caused by the motorist being far too close, so close in fact that he hit the cyclist. You're right that the cyclist moves out just before impact, probably not much more than 6", however that has no bearing on whether the motorist would have been too close or not, the motorist was overtaking into oncoming traffic, it was not safe to do so whether the cyclist moved out or not.
So just to clarify, there is no "_primarily_", there is nowhere else to try to apportion blame or responsibility, this collision was solely, unequivocally and absolutely the fault of a driver who drove straight into the back of a cyclist.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Jul 2018)

Mugshot said:


> Absolute bollocks.
> The collision (let's not call it an accident eh?) was not "_primarily caused by the driver being far too close"_, it was solely caused by the motorist being far too close, so close in fact that he hit the cyclist. You're right that the cyclist moves out just before impact, probably not much more than 6", however that has no bearing on whether the motorist would have been too close or not, the motorist was overtaking into oncoming traffic, it was not safe to do so whether the cyclist moved out or not.
> So just to clarify, there is no "_primarily_", there is nowhere else to try to apportion blame or responsibility, this collision was solely, unequivocally and absolutely the fault of a driver who drove straight into the back of a cyclist.


Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.


----------



## Accy cyclist (14 Jul 2018)

Bloody old knobhead! No mention of a fine i see. Hopefully no one will offer the idiot affordable insurance when he gets his license back. That's if he has the gall to try and drive again!


----------



## Mugshot (14 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.


Are you trolling or are you really not understanding this? You would struggle to contradict yourself more in one paragraph if you tried.
You accuse me of talking bollocks then go on to say that the driver was;
_"too close"
"should never have tried the overtake"
"wasn't safe"_
was going to perform "_a VERY unsafe pass"_
Then continue to victim blame a cyclist for riding along the road doing absolutely nothing wrong, I'll repeat myself as you don't seem to get it, the cyclist did absolutely nothing wrong. There is nothing the cyclist did that caused this collision, everything that occurred in this video is due to the actions of the motorist, whatever the reasons were that those actions were taken by the motorist are immaterial, had they not attempted the overtake the collision would not have happened, it was not safe to attempt the overtake, you have said so yourself.
Quit the victim blaming and stop calling it an accident, it was a collision.


----------



## DaveReading (14 Jul 2018)

Mugshot said:


> Are you trolling or are you really not understanding this?
> 
> Quit the victim blaming and stop calling it an accident, it was a collision.



I think you are the one who fails to understand.

There is a big difference between attempting to explain the mechanics of an event, on one hand, and apportioning blame, on the other.

I don't see anything in the posts that you are taking exception to that constitutes victim blaming.


----------



## Milkfloat (14 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.



I suggest you watch the video again. You do realise that it was 3 riders he hit, not two? The first rider that is shown at the start of their video did not move their line whatsoever.

The rest of your victim blaming is also utter claptrap.


----------



## Mugshot (14 Jul 2018)

DaveReading said:


> I don't see anything in the posts that you are taking exception to that constitutes victim blaming.





Phaeton said:


> The accident was primarily caused by the driver being far too close


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.



The collision was caused solely by the driver driving straight into a group of riders who were doing nothing wrong.
It was nobody's fault but his.

And thank god the riders had cameras fitted or this may well have been yet another "the cyclist swerved in front of me" scenario where a driver would not have had to answer for his crime.


----------



## DaveReading (14 Jul 2018)

Mugshot said:


> DaveReading said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see anything in the posts that you are taking exception to that constitutes victim blaming.
> ...



Fine. 

I've had the (mis)fortune to spend my entire career in an industry where there is a clear and universally understood difference between "cause", "responsibility" and "blame" in an accident investigation (in fact the latter term is never used).

If you want to use those terms interchangeably, then of course you are perfectly at liberty to do so.


----------



## Slick (14 Jul 2018)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The collision was caused solely by the driver driving straight into a group of riders who were doing nothing wrong.
> It was nobody's fault but his.
> 
> And thank god the riders had cameras fitted or this may well have been yet another "the cyclist swerved in front of me" scenario where a driver would not have had to answer for his crime.


I haven't bothered with cameras now for some time as I was just enjoying being on the bike. Both are back on charge ready for the weekend ride.


----------



## simongt (15 Jul 2018)

Apparently a few years back, the legendary Stirling Moss gave up veteran racing at the age of eighty something saying 'Speed was beginning to scare me.'


----------



## Drago (15 Jul 2018)

Stirling Toss? Met him once. I was on duty at Silverstone for the Grand Prix when he wandered over to me at the entrance to the Paddock, camel hair coat over his shoulders, obsequious entourage close in tow.

"Tell such and such I'm here to see him", he barked. No good afternoon, no please, no would you mind awfully. I looked him up and down disdainfully for a moment before replying, "certainly sir, and who should I say is asking?" His face was priceless.

And a few years later he fell down a lift shaft, though that was nothing to do with me.


----------



## Origamist (15 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.



There are 4 riders in the group. The rider at the rear is the first to be hit. His line does not alter. It is here that the driver loses his wing mirror. The rider in position number three, escapes being hit, he is riding a few inches closer to the hedge and the car is now lacking a wing mirror. The rider in position number two is riding further out and moves slightly to her right and is hit by the car. The rider at the front of the group is not hit by the driver, but is taken out by the projectile bike of rider number two. That is my understanding of the mechanics of this multiple collision.

It's terrible driving and disappointing that the more serious charge of 'Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving' was not pursued.


----------



## mjr (16 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> ... but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do,


Never mind "full rights" bikes never travel dead straight and that one doesn't vary by more than the standard dynamic envelope of a bike (I think that's specified in DfT LTN2/08 but it might be DMRB IAN 195/16) so it's extremely unreasonable to call that expected within-standard variation a cause, isn't it? You may as well call gravity the cause of the injuries because without it, all concerned would have floated off into space!


----------



## Phaeton (16 Jul 2018)

mjr said:


> Never mind "full rights" bikes never travel dead straight and that one doesn't vary by more than the standard dynamic envelope of a bike (I think that's specified in DfT LTN2/08 but it might be DMRB IAN 195/16) so it's extremely unreasonable to call that expected within-standard variation a cause, isn't it? You may as well call gravity the cause of the injuries because without it, all concerned would have floated off into space!


You seem to be arguing with yourself.


----------



## jefmcg (16 Jul 2018)

Phaeton said:


> You seem to be arguing with yourself


No, he's arguing with you as you insist on being the lone voice blaming the victim in a collision that was 100% the driver's fault.


----------



## DaveReading (16 Jul 2018)

mjr said:


> You may as well call gravity the cause of the injuries because without it, all concerned would have floated off into space!



You might want to have another think about that. In zero gravity, objects are weightless, not massless. Newton's Laws still apply.


----------



## mjr (16 Jul 2018)

DaveReading said:


> You might want to have another think about that. In zero gravity, objects are weightless, not massless. Newton's Laws still apply.


The impacts were with the bikes first and without gravity it would probably have knocked things flying rather than riders into the ground and things on the ground. Or alternatively, none of the vehicles would have traction after hitting the first bump in the road anyway and wouldn't have collided in that manner.

Prove me wrong if you like: reenact that crash in a zero gravity environment. I'll gladly admit my mistake then and anyway, it would be interesting to see


----------



## Drago (16 Jul 2018)

DaveReading said:


> You might want to have another think about that. In zero gravity, objects are weightless, not massless. Newton's Laws still apply.



Although it all gets a bit fuzzy arou d massively dense objects where Einsteinian physics takes over.


----------



## classic33 (16 Jul 2018)

In a Zero G enviroment, they'd not have had any contact with the road surface.


----------



## Pale Rider (16 Jul 2018)

Origamist said:


> There are 4 riders in the group. The rider at the rear is the first to be hit. His line does not alter. It is here that the driver loses his wing mirror. The rider in position number three, escapes being hit, he is riding a few inches closer to the hedge and the car is now lacking a wing mirror. The rider in position number two is riding further out and moves slightly to her right and is hit by the car. The rider at the front of the group is not hit by the driver, but is taken out by the projectile bike of rider number two. That is my understanding of the mechanics of this multiple collision.
> 
> It's terrible driving and disappointing that the more serious charge of 'Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving' was not pursued.



I agree with your analysis, but 'causing serious injury by dangerous driving' was always going to be a struggle.

The CPS guidelines say serious injury for this purpose must be the same as 'causing grievous bodily harm' (GBH) in a non-motoring context.

The worst injury seems to be cracked ribs, which probably doesn't amount to GBH.

It does amount to the lesser offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but Parliament has said that is not sufficient for the purpose of a serious injury by dangerous driving charge.

Put another way, if someone caused those injuries in a pub fight, they would expect to be charged with actual bodily harm, not GBH.


----------



## Origamist (16 Jul 2018)

Pale Rider said:


> I agree with your analysis, but 'causing serious injury by dangerous driving' was always going to be a struggle.
> 
> The CPS guidelines say serious injury for this purpose must be the same as 'causing grievous bodily harm' (GBH) in a non-motoring context.
> 
> ...



I understood that rib fractures were categorised as GBH?


----------



## Pale Rider (16 Jul 2018)

Origamist said:


> I understood that rib fractures were categorised as GBH?



I think it's a matter of legal - and medical - judgment, so there's no absolute answer.

Some rib fractures are presumably more serious than others - isn't it possible to fracture a rib by coughing?

The serious injury charge was made, so someone thought it was a possibility.

Horse trading then comes into it.

The defence offer to plead to simple dangerous if the prosecution drop the serious charge.

The prosecution, probably thinking the serious injury charge is marginal, take the 'bird in the hand' approach.

It may also be the prosecution was not confident of getting simple dangerous past a jury.

Rightly or wrongly, juries have been known to accept the 'it was just an accident' defence by a car driver.


----------



## DaveReading (16 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> Although it all gets a bit fuzzy arou d massively dense objects where Einsteinian physics takes over.



Well yes, but since we're debating a straw man argument advanced to refute a point that hadn't actually been made, we probably shouldn't worry to much about the finer details.


----------



## wonderloaf (16 Jul 2018)

Oh well, now this local news item made it into the mainstream news and Mrs W has seen it she's worrying herself sick every time I leave the house. As she says to me 'I'm not worried about you, it's the other idiots I worry about'.


----------



## Drago (16 Jul 2018)

Its been on the Mail. Unsurprisingly, most of their readers reckon the cyclists fault for having the temerity to be in front of a car.


----------



## Origamist (16 Jul 2018)

Pale Rider said:


> The defence offer to plead to simple dangerous if the prosecution drop the serious.



Bingo.


----------



## Arjimlad (17 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> Its been on the Mail. Unsurprisingly, most of their readers reckon the cyclists fault for having the temerity to be in front of a car.



This has brought out all sorts of ridiculous comments from cycle-haters


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Jul 2018)

The video has just been posted on the local Lancaster facebook group... under the heading 'a solution for cyclists'  The OP claims he's asking for a friend, and reckons he's a cyclist too


----------



## Drago (17 Jul 2018)

The latest in a long line of reasons not to do Facetwitspace.


----------



## mgs315 (17 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> Its been on the Mail. Unsurprisingly, most of their readers reckon the cyclists fault for having the temerity to be in front of a car.



Aye. One of the typical Torygraph readers in my local merely said ‘can’t they find something better to do than get in the way of taxpayers?’


----------



## Milzy (17 Jul 2018)

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/16/woma...oard-crashed-flower-show-7722217/?ito=cbshare

Get the old goats off the road, stop this PC madness.


----------



## Drago (17 Jul 2018)

People who aren't fit to drive, but who carry on doing so regardless, should be seriously punished. The consequences if you're caught are so puny there's no incentive to be sensible.


----------



## DaveReading (17 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> People who aren't fit to drive, but who carry on doing so regardless, should be seriously punished.



Are you assuming that those who are unfit to drive recognise that fact ?

Or are you advocating regular driver re-testing ?


----------



## Profpointy (17 Jul 2018)

One thing on this is when a past-it driver has an accident due to decrepitute, even if (unlike this instance) little harm is actually done, it makes the national press and calls for "something to be done" ensue. 2000 are killed on the roads each year, overwhelmingly not by the elderly.

I can't help see a parallel with the calls for (anti-) cycling legislation in the light of the recent bad cycling case where the pedestrian was killed. Tragic though it was, it really is low priority compared to the carnage from motor vehicles. Likewise past-it drivers, 99% of whom self limit to familiar roads in daylight causing little more than mild annoyance by dithering.

Not saying it's OK, as this case shows, but in the greater scheme of things, moronic, aggressive, and downright murderous (ie with intent to use a vehicle to intimidate or wound) driving should be the focus of any policy.

If age is to be a criteria, wouldn't banning anyone under 25 or 30 save far more lives ?


----------



## Drago (17 Jul 2018)

DaveReading said:


> Are you assuming that those who are unfit to drive recognise that fact ?
> 
> Or are you advocating regular driver re-testing ?



The latter. Perhaps every decade, then every 3 years at 70, something of that order.

Certainly the Rav4 driver knew she was unfit to drive, else she wouldnt have had written instructions on her dashboard telling her how to operate the vehicle.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> Certainly the Rav4 driver


I've searched for every mention of Rav4 on this site. Nothing matches this post. Do you really expect us to know what you are talking about?


----------



## Drago (17 Jul 2018)

jefmcg said:


> I've searched for every mention of Rav4 on this site. Nothing matches this post. Do you really expect us to know what you are talking about?



Why do you feel the need to be rude to everyone?

Here, go back a whole 5 posts and read the link.



Milzy said:


> https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/16/woma...oard-crashed-flower-show-7722217/?ito=cbshare
> 
> Get the old goats off the road, stop this PC madness.



The vehicle in question is a Rav4 automatic, so clearly I do know what I'm talking about.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> Why do you feel the need to be rude to everyone?


I wasn't trying to be rude I was trying to show I had made a good faith effort to understand before asking.

So thank you for clarifying.


----------



## Milzy (17 Jul 2018)

jefmcg said:


> I've searched for every mention of Rav4 on this site. Nothing matches this post. Do you really expect us to know what you are talking about?


LOL!!! o_O


----------



## jefmcg (17 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> Certainly the Rav4 driver knew she was unfit to drive, else she wouldnt have had written instructions on her dashboard telling her how to operate the vehicle.


I disagree. Someone whose mental state has deteriorated so far as to need such instructions, probability doesn't have the capacity to judge what she is doing is dangerous. If she didn't write that note (and I suspect she didn't), then whoever did is the person I would like to see in court.

Edit:


Drago said:


> People who aren't fit to drive, but who carry on doing so regardless, should be seriously punished.


So you'd like to see that old lady seriously punished? To what end? She's not going to do it again. Other old people who are sliding into dementia are not going to learn a lesson. If they were capable of that, they wouldn't need cheat notes to drive.


----------



## Milzy (17 Jul 2018)

jefmcg said:


> I disagree. Someone whose mental state has deteriorated so far as to need such instructions, probability doesn't have the capacity to judge what she is doing is dangerous. If she didn't write that note (and I suspect she didn't), then whoever did is the person I would like to see in court.


Totally, the note writer is putting her and others at risk.


----------



## classic33 (17 Jul 2018)

She got behind the wheel, took control of the vehicle, and then went onto the road. There she had the choice, before entering the vehicle, of using it or not.

Bringing it to a cycling level. What would you say about a person that had to rely on a note on how to ride the bike.


----------



## Drago (17 Jul 2018)

I like the idea that in a life or death emergency the driver felt she could take time out to read a note. I'm with Lance O'Classic - she had a choice, and considering the deliberate and predetermined effort she made to pilot a vehicle she did not know how to drive effectively the punishment is liable to be derisory.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> I like the idea that in a life or death emergency the driver felt she could take time out to read a note. I'm with Lance O'Classic - she had a choice, and considering the deliberate and predetermined effort she made to pilot a vehicle she did not know how to drive effectively the punishment is liable to be derisory.


And I hold that it's likely that her prefrontal cortex had deteriorated to the extent that she was no longer capable of making this judgement.

I'd rather go the other way, and take licenses away in some cases without a guilty verdict. Like the woman who ran straight into a well lit cyclist in Regent Street. She never saw him until he hit her bonnet and wondered if he had fallen from the sky. Ok, so the jury accepted it was not criminal, but can't we say as a society that if you can't see a cyclist right in front of you on a street that is lit almost to daylight then you can't drive any more? Take the license away, as we do from people who are losing their sight, or suffer from blackouts No judgement, but you aren't a driver anymore.


----------



## classic33 (17 Jul 2018)

jefmcg said:


> And I hold that it's likely that her prefrontal cortex had deteriorated to the extent that she was no longer capable of making this judgement.
> 
> I'd rather go the other way, and take licenses away in some cases without a guilty verdict. Like the woman who ran straight into a well lit cyclist in Regent Street. She never saw him until he hit her bonnet and wondered if he had fallen from the sky. Ok, so the jury accepted it was not criminal, but can't we say as a society that if you can't see a cyclist right in front of you on a street that is lit almost to daylight then you can't drive any more? Take the license away, as we do from people who are losing their sight, or suffer from blackouts No judgement, but you aren't a driver anymore.


I'm not, due to "blackouts", but I remain a legal road user. One who'll take alternative transport after a "blackout" if I don't feel its safe to cycle.

And I've yet to have one whilst cycling.


----------



## mjr (17 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> Bringing it to a cycling level. What would you say about a person that had to rely on a note on how to ride the bike.


"Why are you talking to yourself again?"  (I do look at the numbers on the shifter to figure out which way round the gears are on the bike... one of them is the opposite way round to all the rest, pulling towards me to go faster).


----------



## Andy in Germany (18 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> The latter. Perhaps every decade, then every 3 years at 70, something of that order.



Japan has 'refresher' driving tests every five years. I can't say it seems to have improved driving, but they have the more relaxed style of driving common in Asia, so it is hard to make a direct comparison.


----------



## Andy in Germany (18 Jul 2018)

classic33 said:


> I'm not, due to "blackouts", but I remain a legal road user. One who'll take alternative transport after a "blackout" if I don't feel its safe to cycle.
> 
> And I've yet to have one whilst cycling.



I stopped because of panic attacks. These are nasty because they are already happening before you become aware of them, and one symptom is that you miss details, like red lights. 

I don't get them on a bike because I feel more in control and know how to deal with problems.


----------



## Drago (18 Jul 2018)

jefmcg said:


> So you'd like to see that old lady seriously punished? To what end?



To deter her from running anyone else over in her 1.7 tonne SUV and knocking them unconscious?


----------



## Crankarm (19 Jul 2018)

Slick said:


> 20 quid victim surcharge, how did they get to that figure?



It doesn't actually go to the victims.


----------



## Crankarm (19 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> Holy Trump! Lord only knows how no one was killed. Awful.
> 
> It boils my wee wee how the CPS play games with charges for the sake of experience. People were injured, so they should have progressed the 'injury by charge. It's just a numbers game to them.



They are just not up to the job.


----------



## Crankarm (19 Jul 2018)

Drago said:


> People who aren't fit to drive, but who carry on doing so regardless, should be seriously punished. The consequences if you're caught are so puny there's no incentive to be sensible.



There is a list of medical conditions on the DVLA website that drivers are required by law to notify them of. IIRC failure to do so could mean a fine of up to £1000. I didn't see psychopath on it although there are many psychological conditions in the list which require notification. Anyone ever been fined for failure to notify do you think? Of course a doctor could decide some one is unfit to drive through poor health as well as fairly obvious health conditions, alcohol and or drug dependency, etc.

In this awful case it looks to me like the driver looked toward his mirrors at one point after colliding with one of the cyclists so could have been deliberate which should have meant much more serious charges brought against him. Driving is a lawful activity until done negligently. It is my impression that assaulting some one i.e. committing ABH or GBH is an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act and is never lawful, unless a recognised defence can be established e.g. self defence. The CPS simply aren't up to the job. In any case the sentence was extremely lenient and should be appealed. But I might be wrong.


----------



## Oldfentiger (19 Jul 2018)

jefmcg said:


> I disagree. Someone whose mental state has deteriorated so far as to need such instructions, probability doesn't have the capacity to judge what she is doing is dangerous. If she didn't write that note (and I suspect she didn't), then whoever did is the person I would like to see in court.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> So you'd like to see that old lady seriously punished? To what end? She's not going to do it again. Other old people who are sliding into dementia are not going to learn a lesson. If they were capable of that, they wouldn't need cheat notes to drive.



Those are very good points which I agree with.
However it didn't help me when, in 1974, I was convicted for driving with excess alcohol and banned for a year.
Me telling the prosecuting officer that I was too p1ssed to know what i was doing didn't cut the mustard, apparently


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Jul 2018)

jefmcg said:


> . If she didn't write that note (and I suspect she didn't), then whoever did is the person I would like to see in court.



Perhaps all would have been well if note writer had added: 'Don't mow down any cyclists you pass.'


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Nov 2019)

Milzy said:


> Nobody should be driving after 80. I don’t care how much you cry about it.


Thats nonesense as well as ageist. My father in law is 85 and drives perfectly well. We have been into Germany today. Not a problem and perfectly safe. 

Each case has to be taken on its merits.


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> My father in law is 85 and drives perfectly well. We have been into Germany today.


Bombing run, or a recce?


----------



## steveindenmark (4 Nov 2019)

It was the Christmas alcohol run 😁


----------



## simongt (4 Nov 2019)

The man who rear ended me last year was 87. He'd been nagged by his family for some time to give up driving. It took a collision and the police to persuade him that it was for the best.


----------



## Mr Celine (8 Nov 2019)

Drago said:


> Bombing run, or a recce?


If you're so senile that you think we're still bombing Germany 75 years after the war ended shouldn't you hand in your licence?


----------



## Drago (8 Nov 2019)

I may as well hand in ,y TV licence, seeing as most of their output is of wartime vintage.


----------



## Grant Fondo (9 Nov 2019)

So what happened to the MX5 driver 18 months ago? ??


----------



## DaveReading (9 Nov 2019)

Grant Fondo said:


> So what happened to the MX5 driver 18 months ago? ??



See link in post #1.


----------



## johnnyb47 (9 Nov 2019)

OMG. I've just spotted this thread and viewed the video clip. That was truly frightening to watch and hope the victims are on the mend. Seeing videos like this really makes you stop and think at how vulnerable we are "out there" and does put me off cycling on the roads to some extent. Such videos for anybody considering taking up cycling must really have a negative impact on there decisions. 
From what i saw of it, the cyclist did move out slightly to avoid a pot hole hole or something (which he's perfectly in him/her right) and that was when the driver hit them. It looked like the cyclist was then smashed into the others. As a motorist and cyclist myself, I think the driver actions was appalling. He should of slowed down and waited for the on coming traffic to pass before overtaking and then give plenty a space whilst doing it. A good space is always needed because cyclists by nature never cycle perfectly parallel to the edge. General wobbles or pot hole avoiding is a normal way we ride. I may be stating the obvious here as we can all see it, but i think there should be more advertisement media on tv on how mindful motorists should be towards cyclists, especially as cycling is becoming ever more popular. 
P,S its Snowing here in Wales. The first this winter!!


----------



## Kryton521 (19 Feb 2020)

Phaeton said:


> Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.


No. No And no again. This was not an "accident" It was terrible driving. Didn't see or react before or after hitting the cyclists. Made no attempt to avoid them. Totally blinded to them by the oncoming traffic.

Simple truth is, insurance companies should and could do more to get bad drivers off the road. Black box technology exists, if it meant the roads were safer I'd have one.


----------

