Safe Speed Forums

So many clearly aren't which is a very sad and sorry state of affairs (and sadly and sorrily accepted, practically relished, by many on here for what I suspect are highly selfish reasons "step into MY road and you WILL be killed, so keep off so I can drive as carelessly as I want"), and clearly Steve can't trust himself to drive a car properly in the dark either.

I wondered what explanation Fisherman would give us - but the answer given online is:


The defendant admitted the offence - the article does not say whether he plead guilty, but the admission amounts to the same.
His license is REVOKED by DVLA and cannot be un-revoked without an application which would require a medical - unlikely given the age and circumstances.

At a guess, I suspect that a guilty verdict and conviction may carry some mandatory punishment, and block the option of a suspended sentence.
As I posted, everyone can see that the charge was apt, and while the sentence differs from your suggestion above in it's words, the outcome is identical - the defendant has not been "cleared", he is not in jail and he cannot drive again, as his sight will not improve.

Again, I hope Fisherman will appear and clear up the sentencing guidelines!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

The case of 90-year-old Stanley Casson from 1999 has many similarities with this one. Although sentenced to one year's imprisonment, I believe this was reduced to a suspended sentence on appeal.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I speak from personal experience. My uncorrected vision is about that and I know that I would be unlikely to be able to spot an illuminated pedestrian or cyclist in time avoid them at walking pace let alone 20mph.


Of course. But it does not remove the obligation from the driver.


touche

If someone with uncorrected 5/20 vision chooses to drive then it is difficult to conclude other than that he is careless of the risk he poses to other road users.

Yes, if it could be enforced.


Can you demonstrate conclusively that if the victim had been wearing reflective clothing and flashing lights the accident would not have occurred. As I have said I know from personal experience that it is impossible for someone with that reduced level of visual acuity to walk about safely let alone drive a motor car at 20mph.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Your barefaced exaggeration ("at walking pace") does your argument no favours.

Just to confirm something here: your experience tell you that one cannot see an illuminated object even though one has vision good enough to resolve features of 23mm at 20m - or a person-sized object of 23cm at 200m ?
Please can you reconcile that one for us?


No one said it did. The driver was punished for his 'accidental' lapse...


Did that someone realise his vision was unacceptable? It was reported that "he was unaware of any decline in his vision". So do you agree that you were wrong to assume he 'choose'?


Amerika. Singapore. So the answer is yes!


So do you accept my statement?
I might remind you that another independent witness (whose vision also wasn't disputed) also "lost sight of the women and assumed they had moved onto the pavement"

Bikes are fitted with reflectors for a reason!
It is very reasonable to assume that driver managed to pass many cyclists in darkness during the many months when he had his poor vision. So you tell me!

It is everyone's responsibility to be safe. In this case, one party was apparently unaware and the other outright "reckless"; unfortunately the latter paid the ultimate price.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

No weepej! All of that is in your mind.

I quote this as further evidence of your outright bias against motoring.


The same applies to you too. I guess by that logic we should all stop driving (and cycling) during the night - right?

Before you take that route: challenging != incapable

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It is no exaggeration.


No he wasn't. An absolute discharge is not a meaningful punishment. Nor was the lapse accidental.


No I do not agree. It is impossible to be unaware of a such a marked loss of visual acuity. Even in the unlikely event of him never reading newspapers or watching television he would have difficulty with many ordinary activities.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Excellent!
Your logics demands there is no way he can see an illuminated cyclist in time. So in those 18 months you must also conclude he cannot have passed any cyclists, or not driven on roads with lane dividers or pavements, or with nearby trees......

We'll leave that there for the reader to judge, as well as your avoidance of the posed question.


Yes he was. He was convicted and given penalty points.


Apparently he was, and the judge accepted this with the expert evidence afforded to him.

You evaded my pertinent question, so you are not in a position to substantiate your opposing opinion.


Like driving, successfully passing cyclists and .....need I repeat all this again?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I'm no Fisherman, but I will voice my 2c.

It seems to me that there are folks who didn't quite understand the sentence passed in this case.

For our UK system, penalties are usually passed to reflect the risk posed; they are not based on the actual outcome. This is desirable as it allows mitigating and agravating circumstances to be considered (that door swings both ways).
One notable exception is for dangerous driving, this behaviour is usually associated with wanton intent.
Given the fact that other witnesses (competent drivers) in this case voiced concerns about the visibility of the victims, it can be argued that the charge of dangerous driving cannot be applied.

The driver in this case was (IMO rightly) convicted of careless driving, this behaviour is usually associated with unintended errors of judgement. In this case, mitigating factors were considered - any risk probably would ordinarily be low if other parties are not "reckless".

As extremely unfortunate as the outcome is, the sentence passed isn't unexpected or unreasonable.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Or blatant, or knowing recklessness. People don't generally intend to cause harm to others on the road, but they may well act in a way that they know, or should know, is potentially highly dangerous or risky, in which case a charge of dangerous driving would be appropriate. I agree that in this case it would not have been.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I think DCB does too - but for some reason wants a different narration of the verdict, which would only result in the same circumstances.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Driving with defective vision - and ones visual acuity is something that can easily be checked by attempting to read a number plate at 20 meters - is knowingly reckless. Which is why I think that in this case there was a clear case of dangerous driving. The fact that the outcome of that dangerous driving depended on the supposedly reckless behaviour of the victim is quite irrelevant.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I would like a conviction on the serious charge of dangerous driving to send the message that driving with defective vision will not be tolerated by the judicial system. Driving with defective vision is akin to driving with defective brakes but, unlike driving with defective brakes, it does not appear to be a crime of absolute liability. Claiming "I thought that my eyesight was fine" seems to be the perfect defence,

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Firstly, we didn't attend court and didn't hear all the evidence.

Secondly the people that got hit were not on the ped exing and it was dark and they were unlit, so have to shoulder some of the blame for their predicament, whether you like it or not, people have to take responsibility for their own safety.

Thirdly, the guy was in his late 80's and no longer drives. What would giving him a stiffer sentence achieve? If he was likely to carry on driving, then yes, throw the book at him. He could be heavily fined, maybe. If he was given a custodial sentence it would as likely as not kill him.

I would argue for regular testing of ALL drivers and more regular testing of elderly drivers, which would have filtered this chap out.

It w2opuld send a serious message to other idiots who think that driving with defective vision is acceptable. I have never suggested that a custodial sentence would be appropriate. A suspended sentence would be correct. What gets up my nose about this case is that the driver has been totally exonerated - an absolute discharge is an exoneration - of the charge of causing death by dangerous driving and the culpability has been entirely transferred to the victim


On that we can agree.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Again you make unfounded and misleading assumptions.

It is reasonable to suspect that many of those who engage in motoring forums are very well versed in the technical details of driving. I don't presume that all the driving population is so well versed in these matters as us (there is life outside of forums), especially those who passed their test 69 years ago.


The issue is where the line was drawn. Only 1/3 of adults have 2020 vision, hence the other 2/3s technically has 'defective vision'. I very much doubt the other 2/3s are wearing glasses or contact lenses. It does seem to me that we are focussing on a number at the expense of what is significant.


Incorrect.
The level of culpability of the driver was reported to be below sentencing guidelines; that does not mean it was entirely absent.

Conversely, the actions of the victims were certainly very reckless. There is no reason why this culpability should be heaped back onto other road users, yet there are a few who seem to be tending towards this very notion....

I say again: the charge of dangerous driving need not apply because other competent drivers voiced concerns about the visibility of the victims.


Yes, so long as the bar is set reasonably.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I suspect that the reason for the discharge, rather than a guilty verdict may be because the guilty verdict carries an automatic custodial sentence - which is why I hoped Fisherman could give us the sentencing guidelines.
As stated previously, it is NOT a conviction... but the defendant DID admit the offence.

I rather suspect that the driver believed that his vision though poor, was not poor enough to stop driving, as he felt he could make out shapes etc. - and his quoted speed (not questioned as far as I can see) of 20mph seems to indicate this could have been the case. This should be he reason he was charged as he was.
If I tip my head back while driving, my bifocal lenses make everything beyond the dash go blurred. In nearly every circumstance I have tried this, I can STILL "see" - albeit without sharpness and clarity.

I notice that nothing has been said about what the carer was wearing - if she was stood between the driver and the mobility scooter as reported, ("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.") she could have masked a lighter colour or any reflectors present, except in this instance it WAS black.
She appears to have had a lucky escape, while her charge has paid the price for her own careless actions.
Perhaps along with repeat testing of elderly drivers, we should add testing of drivers of mobility scooters!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Did I miss something here?
I thought the driver was convicted for careless driving? (which I believe does not carry an automatic custodial sentence) If not, how did he get his penalty points?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

So why were three penalty points awarded? There must have been a second charge of simple careless driving.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown