Safe Speed Forums

Elderly driver who killed disabled woman walks free from court
7:30AM BST 18 Aug 2010

An elderly driver who crashed into and fatally injured a disabled woman riding on a motorised scooter has walked free from court.
Raymond Hampshire, of Eckington, near Sheffield admitted causing her death by careless driving on December 6, 2008
Raymond Hampshire, 87, had cataracts in both eyes and was unfit to be on the road even if he had been wearing glasses, according to an expert.

He was driving home in the evening from a casino when his Ford Sierra struck the scooter, throwing 43-year-old spina bifida sufferer Fiona Buckley to the ground.
His eye condition which gave him "foggy" sight would have rendered her almost invisible to him, Sheffield Crown Court heard.

Miss Buckley suffered a major head injury and broke her pelvis, spine and leg. She died in hospital six weeks later from multi-organ failure due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
Hampshire, of Eckington, near Sheffield admitted causing her death by careless driving on December 6, 2008.

But Judge Robert Moore took pity on the ex-soldier and gave him an absolute discharge after hearing that an accident expert regarded the victim as reckless for riding on the road in the dark with a black scooter.
After the hearing, Audrey Heeley, 74, the victim's auntie who spoke on behalf of the family said: "We are all upset over the sentence.
"I don't think the judge appreciated that the wheelchair was only on the road momentarily so Fiona could get onto the pavement. If she had fallen her carer could not have put her back into the wheelchair. We loved Fiona very much and will miss her."

Hampshire has already had his driving licence revoked by the DVLA due to medical reasons since the accident on Abbey Lane, Beauchief, Sheffield.
The victim was riding in the roadway at 10pm with her carer Kay Pilley, 46, walking just behind, heading in the same direction as the defendant.
Hampshire later told police he had just set off from some traffic lights and was doing about 20 mph uphill.
He said: "Suddenly I heard this bang at the front of the car and wondered what it was. I never saw them at all. That was it."
Prosecutor Rachael Harrison said the women had earlier been spotted on the carriageway by other motorists.
Driver Neil Tyrell, who was behind Hampshire's car, lost sight of the women and assumed they had moved onto the pavement.
He did not see the Sierra overtake or brake and then Miss Buckley "popped up" over the top of the Sierra. As everyone stopped, Hampshire was heard to say: "What were they doing in the road?"
Miss Buckley was left unconscious and Miss Pilley was lying in the road. She suffered head and knee injuries and was treated at hospital. She could not remember what happened.

Police officers later tested Hampshire's eyesight and found he could not read a car number plate from the required distance of 20.5 metres.
He was found to have cataracts in both eyes which had probably been there for 18 months. A doctor said it would give him "foggy or hazy" sight.
He also suffered from age-related macular degeneration which blurs the central vision.
With his right eye he could only see from six metres what a normal person could read from 24 metres.
When charged by police in August last year, Hampshire replied: "I do not see how it was my fault. It's not my fault, I'm devastated by this."
Fiona Buckley lived at the Henleigh Hall Care Home on Abbey Lane. Her aunt said in a statement she made the best of her disability and never let being tied to a wheelchair prevent her from living life to the full.

Tim Savage, for the pensioner, said he ran away to join the Army at 16 and had served with the Leicestershire regiment during the Second World War.
He had served in the Kenyan police force, been a Mountie and a lumberjack in Canada and then returned to Sheffield where he was a taxi driver for many years.
He had held a clean driving licence for 69 years and the situation which confronted him was not of his own making.
His cataracts had developed over time and he was unaware of any decline in his vision. ""He is morally almost without blame," said Mr Savage.
"There was nothing in his driving to criticise save for his failure to see."
Despite having the cataracts removed he had chosen not to reapply for his driving licence.
Judge Moore told Hampshire: "In an act of proper remorse you accept some responsibility for this sad death."
He said the level of culpability fell below sentencing guidelines and went on: "Punishment is not appropriate, the fact of the conviction is the real punishment."
He gave the pensioner an absolute discharge, found special reasons not to ban him from driving and just awarded three penalty points.
After the hearing Hampshire said: "I have nothing to say."

... he had just set off from some traffic lights and was doing about 20 mph uphill....

I would like to know why the pedestrians too were on the road ?

If the crossing was not suitable for the mobility scooter then why did she not cross elsewhere. Why did she think not having lights on her vehicle was not suitable when it was dark or even where a reflective jacket ... and so on?

Why not? That statement seems to imply that you think pedestrians should only be allowed to use the road when it is convenient for the driver.


Blaming the victim is not helpful. The fact remains that she was behaving in a perfectly legal manner whilst the driver was breaking the law. She got killed and he got a pat on the head. The law is indeed an ass.

It is worth pointing out that our much maligned NHS does provide free eye tests for the over 60s. But many older drivers fail to avail themselves of the service for fear of being told that they are not fit to drive.,

"But Judge Robert Moore took pity on the ex-soldier and gave him an absolute discharge after hearing that an accident expert regarded the victim as reckless for riding on the road in the dark with a black scooter.(with no lights or reflectors fitted.)"

Having the (reported) facts gives needed perspective.

The reckless, but legal, behaviour of one individual cannot exonerate the illegal behaviour of another.

The point that I raised you on was the reasonableness of the pedestrian's actions (walking in a road when a pavement is available, doing so in a pool of darkness, not having reflectors or lights, walking with traffic); they are not without some level of blame.

I'm sure you wouldn't commend drivers who wantonly drive too fast for the conditions even though they are within the speed limit.

Given the degree of visual impairment (5/20) it is unlikely that he would have seen her even if she had been illuminated. And for the Judge not to ban someone with that level of vision is inexcusable.

The Judge, with his opinion that it is the pedestrians duty to get out of the way of motor vehicles rather than for motorists to avoid pedestrians, would find his spiritual home on these forums.


No I wouldn't condone that example of driving illegally

He was 87 and he didn't reapply for his driving license, what good would banning him have done?

And the unpunished criminal irresponsibility of as man who drives when his vision is impaired to the point where he could, under some definitions, be classed as blind.

Given the degree of visual impairment (5/20) it is unlikely that he would have seen her even if she had been illuminated.

And for the Judge not to ban someone with that level of vision is inexcusable.

The Judge, with his opinion that it is the pedestrians duty to get out of the way of motor vehicles rather than for motorists to avoid pedestrians, would find his spiritual home on these forums.

What punishment do you feel would have been appropriate for an 87-year-old man who will never drive again and is no doubt consumed by remorse?

What on earth has the action of a women trespasser to do with the topic under discussion? There are two distinct matters here. The foolishness of the deceased on assuming that drivers would look out for her safety, which I don't particularly care to discuss.

I suspect a person is a little bit bigger and more noticeable than objects that are 4 x 1/60 of a degree wide (23mm at 20m away) - wouldn't you agree?

Conversely, I think it would have been challenging for any driver to see folks wearing black attire in a "pool of darkness".

Rightly or wrongly, he apparently seems to have found that excuse: "the victim (w)as reckless"

It is the responsibility of motorists to try to avoid other road users, it is also the responsibility of other road users to ensure they don't place themselves in that danger. Isn't that reasonable?

Stupid mare on pit road assumed that the bin lorries will see her.

It is not an unreasonable expectation that someone driving a motor vehicle will look where he is going.

But not visible to that driver

Challenging indeed. But a challenge that, if you drive in the dark, you have to be capable of meeting.

... exonerates ...

That is that thinking that exonerates rapists because the victim was wearing sexy clothing.

The first is a legal obligation. The second is a pragmatic response to motorists ignoring that first obligation.