88-year-old motorist avoids jail after causing the death of a cyclist who she hit “without noticing”

My mother quietly went out and bought herself a car in her early 90s and after several scrapes, I took the keys away as well. She was oblivious to the idea that it would be actually cheaper to call a taxi than pay for all the standing costs of a car in the driveway..

Same situation here, early dementia symptoms reducing his self awareness, a broken hip has resolved the problem.

My mum stopped driving when a PCSO turned up on the doorstep one day and said "we have a report from somebody who followed you all the way home for 6 miles, and said your driving was erratic".

PCSO refused to identify the alleged witness, or whether they were credible. And started telling her to give up her license.

I found that shocking - bullying, basically.

Given ecredible vidence - fine. But that is just hearsay.

Sometimes hard truths need to be stated baldly, Its quite possible it was one of your mothers neighbours or friends who made the report with the best of intentions, wishing to remain anonymous to protect that relationship. Your mother has stopped driving which saves you from a difficult and possibly rancourous conversation at best, at worst you would meeting the eyes of two young children who have lost their mother due to your mother's failure to recognise her own declining capacity !

All drivers over 70 should have to pass an annual medical, backed up by penalties for the doctor if their patient is found to be medically impaired from driving safely, after having being cleared for driving by their doctor.

grOg wrote:

All drivers over 70 should have to pass an annual medical, backed up by penalties for the doctor if their patient is found to be medically impaired from driving safely, after having being cleared for driving by their doctor.

Are you going to impose a medical which includes CT scans, MRIs, ECGs, full blood panels et cetera? If so who is going to pay for them and from where is the capacity to undertake them going to come? There are numerous illnesses and conditions that could affect driving which could only be detected through such tests. As for imposing penalties on doctors as you suggest, that would instantly lead to all doctors refusing to participate in any such scheme, quite understandably.

It basically just needs a GP (or Practice Nurse) check on the renewal form filled in by the elderly person.

All the processes are already in place for optional GP referral for those of us who have 3-year medical licenses. If you have diabetes for example, one of the triggers for a referral is I think a single low blood sugar episode where third-party assistane was required.

It just needs to be made universal for the 3 year (?) license renewals of 75+ (?) aged people.

It won't be difficult, and it will not take many resources. I estimate a couple of hours a week for one Nurse in each GP Practice.

But it's the usual - we have a Govt filled with political cowards who care more about a few votes than people killed on our roads. 

Yes I get that, and I would be all in favour of some basic checks being run as you suggest, that's fine. What I was pointing out to gr0g was that no GP would agree to sign off a driver as fit to continue if, as he suggested, they were penalised if the person was later found to be unfit unless they could run every test imaginable and probably even then they wouldn't want to accept the liability risk.

They already face sanctions, they can potentially be struck off for failure to act in such cases. They have an absolute duty to tell the patient that they should surrender their licence if they consider them unfit and in the event of the patient refusing they can inform the dvla anonymously, but there does seem perhaps too generous a get out clause for doctors in their professional advice in placing the defence of patient confidentiality on a strong footing compared to the risk the driver potentially poses to innocent third parties. Part of the problem is elderly people hiding symptoms that they think might trigger such an action by a doctor.

Robert Hardy wrote:

They already face sanctions, they can potentially be struck off for failure to act in such cases. They have an absolute duty to tell the patient that they should surrender their licence if they consider them unfit and in the event of the patient refusing they can inform the dvla anonymously

I know this, that wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to gr0g's suggestion that every over-70-year-old driver should have a medical examination every three years and that if doctors missed or misdiagnosed a condition that subsequently caused the patient to be involved in a driving incident then the doctor would face penalties. Nothing to do with failing to inform the DVLA of a condition but to do with failing accurately to diagnose the condition. As I said, I don't believe that any medical professional would be prepared to carry out an examination and sign any patient off as fit to drive if they were threatened with sanctions if they failed to identify a condition that later proved problematic, particularly given the complexities of dementia diagnosis.

He claimed that ... her vision was impacted by the glare on the road caused by rainwater.

And that's an excuse?? Highway Code 93 states:
'Slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by bright sunlight.'

It is time that judges disallowed such nonsense??

FFS

But she's a "grandmother" don't you know? 🙄

I'm guessing she also couldn't see (it's the glare from the sun on the wet road - so it's really not the driver's fault, simply couldn't see, so how can they be expected not to hit whatever is in front of them?)

We don't know what side of the road it was though.

She should never have been driving.
Utterly incompetent to be in charge of a vehicle.

We don't. However I would be surprised of the missing mirror was on the drivers side for one, and the reporting mentioned later when the victim was trying to stand again that she was hit, so that does seem to indicate it wasn't split seconds after the collision. The Police supposedly seemed to think only one car was involved until they watched the CCTV, which also potentially indicates the initial car had cleared out of view. 

The mention of CCTV and winter sun on wet roads seems to indicate the collisions happened here in this orientation. So a slight bend but enough time for avoiding a second collision from an attentive driver.