Charged with driving driving without due care and attention
Discussion
Elderly relative has blackout whilst driving resulting in a low speed collision into a garden wall. Car written off but thankfully and very fortunately no injuries to either driver or pedestrians..witness attests to driver suddenly slumping at the wheel then veering into said wall.
Police called and take relative to A&E were after a few days and lots of tests a pacemaker is fitted which after a short while should mean normal life is resumed. No previous history of heart condition or any medical issues at all..The medical incident was totally out of the blue.
Letter from police arrives 10 days after incident advising of intention to prosecute for driving without due care and attention OR go to court to fight the case OR attend a driving assessment course which would cancel the notice of intended prosecution.
Relative is quite willing to attend the course but on principle quite flabbergasted at the NIP for undue care and attention after a totally unexpected medical incident.
I can understand that there are plenty of older folk that in reality shouldn’t be driving ( and in reality should undergo some sort of reassessment) but the carrot and stick approach after such a traumatic incident seems a bit over the top..or is it just me?
Police called and take relative to A&E were after a few days and lots of tests a pacemaker is fitted which after a short while should mean normal life is resumed. No previous history of heart condition or any medical issues at all..The medical incident was totally out of the blue.
Letter from police arrives 10 days after incident advising of intention to prosecute for driving without due care and attention OR go to court to fight the case OR attend a driving assessment course which would cancel the notice of intended prosecution.
Relative is quite willing to attend the course but on principle quite flabbergasted at the NIP for undue care and attention after a totally unexpected medical incident.
I can understand that there are plenty of older folk that in reality shouldn’t be driving ( and in reality should undergo some sort of reassessment) but the carrot and stick approach after such a traumatic incident seems a bit over the top..or is it just me?
Depends on how old they are and standard of their driving.
It should be relatively easy to prove if it was a one off medical condition by attending the course. The course will include some practical driving where an instructor will assess their driving.
If they want to fight it in court i would guess that getting a driver instructor to assess their driving would be a good starting point.
It should be relatively easy to prove if it was a one off medical condition by attending the course. The course will include some practical driving where an instructor will assess their driving.
If they want to fight it in court i would guess that getting a driver instructor to assess their driving would be a good starting point.
Edited by sugerbear on Thursday 21st March 03:37
I don't have an issue with this. I think more needs to be done to stop elderly people who are not competent driving. If he passes the assessment he can crack on.
Modern cars and traffic present a challenge that is not the same as when the current rules were drafted (self extension every 3 years).
Just had to take the car off my elderly FiL who refuses to accept his time has come. It is like speaking to a child.
Modern cars and traffic present a challenge that is not the same as when the current rules were drafted (self extension every 3 years).
Just had to take the car off my elderly FiL who refuses to accept his time has come. It is like speaking to a child.
dundarach said:
From an outsiders perspective, this seems quite reasonable.
He blacks out and crashes into a wall, and plod ask him to complete an assessment course and then all is well and he's on his way again?
What am I missing????
It’s the potential charge that’s the issue - he was, we can assume, driving with full care and attention, then he blacked out. That’s a medical issue. Report to his GP or DVLA, sure, but a criminal charge doesn’t seem appropriate, and so the “alternatives” are equally inappropriate.He blacks out and crashes into a wall, and plod ask him to complete an assessment course and then all is well and he's on his way again?
What am I missing????
Yeah, it’s not unreasonable to require that someone who has collapsed at the wheel, resulting in a crash should be assessed to determine whether they pose a risk to others’ safety if they are permitted to retain their license.
See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66135...
The threat of being charged is inappropriate. Maybe it’s an administrative error.
See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66135...
The threat of being charged is inappropriate. Maybe it’s an administrative error.
Did he actually 'black out' instantly from feeling completely normal?
When you drill down into these cases, you often hear 'I was feeling a bit odd' or 'I felt a bit unwell' in the run-up to the accident.
People need to know they shouldn't be driving if they're not feeling 100%.
Has this person taken sufficient care and attention to ensuring he's fit to drive?
Shouldn't there be a 4th option; 'cut up driving licence'?
It's all very well saying 'it's just a medical incident', but cars can kill people.
When you drill down into these cases, you often hear 'I was feeling a bit odd' or 'I felt a bit unwell' in the run-up to the accident.
People need to know they shouldn't be driving if they're not feeling 100%.
Has this person taken sufficient care and attention to ensuring he's fit to drive?
Shouldn't there be a 4th option; 'cut up driving licence'?
It's all very well saying 'it's just a medical incident', but cars can kill people.
How can you prosecutes someone for driving without due care and attention when they were unconscious from a medical incident?
'Taking a course' isn't going to fix their heart. It's a medical matter not a police one IMHO. Do Plod actually know what caused the accident? Or was the thought process just 'Car + wall = prosecute'?
'Taking a course' isn't going to fix their heart. It's a medical matter not a police one IMHO. Do Plod actually know what caused the accident? Or was the thought process just 'Car + wall = prosecute'?
We have effectively 14 days to issue charges... (NIP; Ok, doesn't techncially apply in a collision)
We have months to cancel charges where evidence of medical blackout is provided...
The blackout is a defence against conviction, not a defence against being charged.
I would expect the case to be dropped once dr's evidence is submitted given it sounds like a new, potentially serious medical issue, but that is still something for the court/criminal justice system to consider properly...
We have months to cancel charges where evidence of medical blackout is provided...
The blackout is a defence against conviction, not a defence against being charged.
I would expect the case to be dropped once dr's evidence is submitted given it sounds like a new, potentially serious medical issue, but that is still something for the court/criminal justice system to consider properly...
MadCaptainJack said:
Yeah, it’s not unreasonable to require that someone who has collapsed at the wheel, resulting in a crash should be assessed to determine whether they pose a risk to others’ safety if they are permitted to retain their license.
See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66135...
The threat of being charged is inappropriate. Maybe it’s an administrative error.
I don't think it's an admin error more a case of the systems put in place are not flexible enough to deal with every circumstance so they have had to use the process which is available to them, maybe if furnished with the full medical details they would make a referral to the DVLA for their intervention, which may actually mean the DVLA revoke the licence pending a medical review. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66135...
The threat of being charged is inappropriate. Maybe it’s an administrative error.
That may be worse for the gentleman in this case depending on how you look at it.
qwerty360 said:
We have effectively 14 days to issue charges... (NIP; Ok, doesn't techncially apply in a collision)
We have months to cancel charges where evidence of medical blackout is provided...
The blackout is a defence against conviction, not a defence against being charged.
I would expect the case to be dropped once dr's evidence is submitted given it sounds like a new, potentially serious medical issue, but that is still something for the court/criminal justice system to consider properly...
Ignore the title of this thread as the person mentioned has not been charged with anything.We have months to cancel charges where evidence of medical blackout is provided...
The blackout is a defence against conviction, not a defence against being charged.
I would expect the case to be dropped once dr's evidence is submitted given it sounds like a new, potentially serious medical issue, but that is still something for the court/criminal justice system to consider properly...
The deadline to issue a Written Charge for a summary-only matter is 6 months from the index offence (there are exceptions, but that is the general rule).
As you appear to know, a Notice of Intended Prosecution must be served within 14 days of the index offence, but that is not required if there was an accident or another exception applies.
Reps can be made to the relevant police prosecutor pre-charge or post-charge. If the matter is listed for trial then CPS will eventually take over conduct of proceedings from the police prosecutor, but that is often only a few days before trial.
Edited by agtlaw on Thursday 21st March 10:50
OutInTheShed said:
Did he actually 'black out' instantly from feeling completely normal?
When you drill down into these cases, you often hear 'I was feeling a bit odd' or 'I felt a bit unwell' in the run-up to the accident.
People need to know they shouldn't be driving if they're not feeling 100%.
This is exactly what will be questioned if he goes to court. Take the course.When you drill down into these cases, you often hear 'I was feeling a bit odd' or 'I felt a bit unwell' in the run-up to the accident.
People need to know they shouldn't be driving if they're not feeling 100%.
Don’t rely on police/CPS dropping charges based on medical evidence. That’s what court cases are for.
Edited by essayer on Thursday 21st March 10:49
My thoughts centre around a potential hypothetical situation where incident investigated, decision made of automatism or unexpected medical incident so NFA. Maybe advice issued to get driving checked out or whatever. Maybe.
That advice then ignored yet some time later there is an unfortunate repeat but with more serious consequences.
Suggest the approach per OP might be a more prescriptive way of making sure that real assessment of the overall situation takes place.
That advice then ignored yet some time later there is an unfortunate repeat but with more serious consequences.
Suggest the approach per OP might be a more prescriptive way of making sure that real assessment of the overall situation takes place.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff