Suspended sentence for 95 year old driver who killed a man.
Discussion
lyonspride said:
Political correctness means the UK doesn't really crack down on elderly drivers who are clearly no longer capable of driving safely. Something I think the US are a lot more strict on.
Knowone seems to care, a few innocent people killed here and there but in the grand scheme of things they aren't killing many. A) It's not that bad as its unlikely they realise they are dangerous until they have killed someone, B) More people are killed by cigarets so let's leave elderly people alone.If I choose to leave the house and get moaned down by an elderly impaired driver, I had no choice in the matter.
If I die or become ill in this day an age from smoking I chose that fate.
Seems to more of an issue in somerset as we seem to have a high level of older pensioners. See a lot of drivers seem to be stuck in their own bubble. Just last year there was a 83 year old who drove at speed up the m5 the wrong way when it was busy! He crashed killing and died days after.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4252232/Pe...
I was watching a lady over Xmas in a new micra, who looked about 100 years old. She has damaged the front and back car cracked bumpers and numberplate. Her manoeuvring seem t by low speed until she felt a bump onto a hazard and then its change direction!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Friday 5th January 08:44
Bit of a daft thread this.
The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
julian64 said:
Bit of a daft thread this.
The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
Ok but if there is evidence of medical issues or optician or doctor has told the driver to give it up, then a prison sentance might be ok then?The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
You're assuming a link between locking someone up after they cause can accident with making others who might cause an accident reevaluate whether they should be driving, more than they would on learning about these incidents anyway?
If someone hears the news "an old person messed up and killed someone, and their age was probably why" and - being old themselves - doesn't think about whether it could happen to them, then I'm of the opinion that adding "and they were banged up (and died in prison)" to that wouldn't be the tipping point to make them do so.
I think your assumption it would is wrong. Can you show why it is right?
If someone hears the news "an old person messed up and killed someone, and their age was probably why" and - being old themselves - doesn't think about whether it could happen to them, then I'm of the opinion that adding "and they were banged up (and died in prison)" to that wouldn't be the tipping point to make them do so.
I think your assumption it would is wrong. Can you show why it is right?
julian64 said:
Bit of a daft thread this.
The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
So if I cause a fatal collision I should just be able to hold my hand up, say it was an honest mistake, and walk away? Not sure I'm comfortable with that. Contrast with a certain cyclist's sentence earlier this year, for example.The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
It was hard work to keep my grandmother out of her car for the five years or so that she was beyond driving safely, but we managed it. Who takes that responsibility for an elderly person with no close relatives to hand?
julian64 said:
Bit of a daft thread this.
The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
The point I was making by opening this thread was that 'IF' this incident had been caused by a younger driver, apologetic or not the sentencing guidelines would imply some time behind bars. The likelihood of time behind bars would rise if the accident was due to the driver being impaired by drink or drugs. Given that this wasn't just a 'oops' moment, but a driver who pressed the accelerator in error, but pressed it and didn't have the thought to take her foot off when it shot forward, but who kept pressing, and pressing, and pressing until the car covered a considerable distance and came to a stop through a hedge and over the guy she killed, I'm making the assumption (yes an assumption based on the reports only) that she didn't react like anybody else would because she was somewhat confused. You can make up your own mind on why she was so 'confused' as to not even try and brake, but looking at pictures of the lady and the wealth of statistical analysis that shows reactions times slow with age, I'm fairly comfortable that a normal reasonable driver would have braked much sooner in this situation. The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
I'm not ageist as I'm old enough to hope that I'll live to a similar age, but I do regard driving as a privilege not a right. I'm not advocating a cut-off age, or compulsory re-tests, but by effectively letting off this old lady the courts are sending out the wrong message IMHO.
Sad case.
However, the intent and consequential loss are relatively light compared to many other actions on the road.
What would the moralising posters so far say about a young healthy woman driving a large SUV while texting?
What about the many testosterone fuelled young men driving on public road as though it were a race track?
Greatest good for the greatest number would address those two scenarios first.
However, the intent and consequential loss are relatively light compared to many other actions on the road.
What would the moralising posters so far say about a young healthy woman driving a large SUV while texting?
What about the many testosterone fuelled young men driving on public road as though it were a race track?
Greatest good for the greatest number would address those two scenarios first.
surveyor_101 said:
julian64 said:
Bit of a daft thread this.
The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
Ok but if there is evidence of medical issues or optician or doctor has told the driver to give it up, then a prison sentance might be ok then?The op seems to be imply that 92 = impaired driving. With no other evidence than the age of the driver. He doesn't know her medical history, driving history or really anything at all apart from her age.
Imagine it had been a 30 year old mum of two children who had accidently pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. What sort of prison sentence would be appropriate then? What would the prison sentence achieve?
.
.
.
.
I would suggest the sentence should be similar for both if it was a genuine mistake, with an apologetic defendant, and no contributory negligence.
The OP is simply ageist IMHO and looking for a story to confirm his prejudice.
But the op isn't saying that. he just says old = impaired which is a logic fail.
Sa Calobra said:
Mandatory eye tests with a minimal level.
That on it's own would remove alot.
I fear it would not...... They'd just get glasses and then make an excuse to not wear them.That on it's own would remove alot.
The real problem isn't just as simple as eyesight, it's situational+spacial awareness and the ability to react quickly. A test on the latest highway code should also be mandatory.
I also think they should be restricted to daytime driving if their eyes struggle in the dark, because slamming on the brakes for every oncoming car is NOT responsible or safe driving.
Edited by lyonspride on Friday 5th January 11:45
surveyor_101 said:
Knowone seems to care, a few innocent people killed here and there but in the grand scheme of things they aren't killing many. A) It's not that bad as its unlikely they realise they are dangerous until they have killed someone, B) More people are killed by cigarets so let's leave elderly people alone.
One could, just as easily, add a C) more people are killed by young drivers per mile driven so as we put up with their ineptness we should put up with those who are less danger to the public.Edited by surveyor_101 on Friday 5th January 08:44
julian64 said:
......
But the op isn't saying that. he just says old = impaired which is a logic fail.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying in this sad incident this particular lady made a huge error which killed a man, and from the (albeit limited) details which have been made known an error which is due to the driver completely forgetting what pedal does what and who's reactions to her confusion were impaired due to her age.But the op isn't saying that. he just says old = impaired which is a logic fail.
What I'm saying is 'old and impaired = dangerous'.
Are you actually suggesting that drivers who kill somebody due to their own foreseeable negligence should not face a prison sentence?
What would putting her in prison achieve? It won't make the roads safer, she's already stopped driving.
If it's to punish her, the question is whether it would do that any more than the guilt etc already does. Not something you can make a blanket decision on.
If the argument is it'll discourage other drivers who should have already stopped driving, fine. Support this hypothesis with something.
If it's to punish her, the question is whether it would do that any more than the guilt etc already does. Not something you can make a blanket decision on.
If the argument is it'll discourage other drivers who should have already stopped driving, fine. Support this hypothesis with something.
TooMany2cvs said:
And there we get to the perennial dilemma of families everywhere.
How many other elderly drivers hit the wrong pedal? It's a regular - the little old lady over the road from where we used to live only handed her licence in when she did the same. It's only the consequences of this one that escalate it so much over simply demolishing a wall or hedge, or biffing somebody else's parked car. She (quite rightly, and probably too late) stuck her paw up and said "Never driving again"... What else can really be done?
Yep. My wife's paternal grandfather drove for too long. Family said they'd take his keys off him, he said he'd go to the police. They asked the police for advice and were told they best not take his keys off him. Madness. How many other elderly drivers hit the wrong pedal? It's a regular - the little old lady over the road from where we used to live only handed her licence in when she did the same. It's only the consequences of this one that escalate it so much over simply demolishing a wall or hedge, or biffing somebody else's parked car. She (quite rightly, and probably too late) stuck her paw up and said "Never driving again"... What else can really be done?
In other news, our local butchers has a nice new shopfront and my elderly nextdoor neighbour has now stopped driving. ;-)
InitialDave said:
What would putting her in prison achieve? It won't make the roads safer, she's already stopped driving.
If it's to punish her, the question is whether it would do that any more than the guilt etc already does. Not something you can make a blanket decision on.
If the argument is it'll discourage other drivers who should have already stopped driving, fine. Support this hypothesis with something.
Are you suggesting the courts take a 'don't lock up a killer if they're sorry and promise not to do it again' policy?If it's to punish her, the question is whether it would do that any more than the guilt etc already does. Not something you can make a blanket decision on.
If the argument is it'll discourage other drivers who should have already stopped driving, fine. Support this hypothesis with something.
I think this is a what is the purpose of prison thread.
- Prevention, the life time ban seem to satisfy this.
- Rehabilitation, the life time ban makes this unnecessary, they won't be driving again.
- Deterrence, this only works if similar drivers take notice, the same incapacity will likely prevent this.
- Punishment, in this case, prison is punitive.
CABC said:
quite possibly.
I'm thinking of the multiple innocent deaths resulting from reckless driving by younger drivers.
not misadventure. Reckless.
The difference is young drivers typically kill/injure themselves and/or their passengers, they don't tend to go ploughing through bus stops, along footpaths and through shop fronts.I'm thinking of the multiple innocent deaths resulting from reckless driving by younger drivers.
not misadventure. Reckless.
Statistically more injuries are caused by elderly drivers per mile, stats from the former minister of transport and published on the BBC news website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2008/09/some_statis...
Of course there are better stats on this from other countries, but too many people would argue that (for example) stats on American elderly drivers isn't comparable to the UK or Australia or Germany, etc.
Knowing your unfit to drive, but doing so out of pure ignorance, is no different to drink driving, which carries VERY heavy penalties if you happen to harm or kill someone.
Edited by lyonspride on Friday 5th January 12:43
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff