- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Simon and Linda Jones (photo supplied)Widow of cyclist killed by driver aged 93 calls for annual testing of older motorists
The widow of a cyclist who was killed by a 93-year-old driver has called on the government to introduce mandatory annual testing for elderly drivers.
Simon Jones, aged 48, died from head and chest injuries sustained when he was hit by motorist James MacKie on Hawthorn Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex on 1 August 2019.
> 95-year-old banned from driving for killing cyclist while on his way to golf club
The driver, now aged 95, did not stop and continued his journey to a golf club, Lewes Crown Court was told.
The motorist, who failed to stop at the scene and continued his journey to a golf club, was found guilty by a jury at Lewes Crown Court last month of causing death by dangerous driving.
He was given a 12-month supervision order and banned from driving for four years, and will have to take an extended retest if he wants to get his driving licence back afterwards.
Currently, UK motorists aged 70 and above need to reapply for their licence to the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency (DVLA) every three years, but the system has been criticised because it relies on self-certification of their fitness to drive.
While medical professionals can advise someone to surrender their licence to the DVLA, they cannot compel them to do so.
That issue was highlighted in a case from Scotland last year involving an 84-year-old motorist who killed a cyclist despite twice being told to stop driving due to his failing eyesight.
> Jail for motorist, 84, who killed cyclist after being told not to drive due to failing eyesight
Mr Jones’ widow, Linda, acknowledged that for many elderly people, being able to drive affords them independence, but said that had annual retests been in place, her husband would still be alive.
Speaking after the sentencing hearing, she said: “Simon was such a charming, warm and wonderful person who was well liked by everyone who knew him.
“He was an amazing husband and step-dad and grandad. We still can’t believe he is no longer part of our family.
“There’s not a day goes by where we don’t think of Simon and all the plans we should be making and memories we should be creating as a family.
“What makes it even harder to come to terms with is that his death was so unnecessary.
“While we know nothing will bring Simon back our family feel that, if any good can come out of this, it would be through the introduction of annual checks for elderly drivers.
“We appreciate that for many elderly people driving helps them maintain their independence and reduces social isolation, which is incredibly important.
“However, what’s more important is that they should be able to prove they are not a danger to the public so other families don’t have to suffer the heartache we have because of Simon’s death.
“We don’t want to label all elderly drivers as a danger but it’s vital other road users as well as the drivers themselves are protected.
“If the driver in this case had been tested we believe that Simon would still be with us.”
Mrs Jones and her family were represented by solicitors Irwin Mitchell.
Jessica Bowles, specialist road accident lawyer at the firm, said: “This is truly tragic case for all involved.
“The collision has had devastating ramifications for Linda and the rest of her family. Their lives have been turned upside down by the events that happened that day.
“We urge motorists to take care on the roads at all times so other families don’t have to experience the loss that Simon’s family have through no fault of their own.
“We will continue to support Linda and the rest of her family to help them try and come to terms with their loss the best they can,” she added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- E6toSE3 25 min 52 sec ago
And years ago Laura Trott, Daniel King, Joanne Rowsell, as theyvwere after Olympic gold, got lots of being and Jaguars, when Jags were very...
- Hirsute 40 min 38 sec ago
Without knowing the police force, it is hard to say other than you are wasting your time with lancs, Essex, Surrey, Suffolk, Norfolk....
- lawrence18uk 1 hour 3 min ago
I must admit I find it odd. I assumed a cyclist had run into a bus driver, fallen off and as a consequence, died (as in "run over by a bus driver")...
- kingleo 1 hour 24 min ago
Did commuting to and from work on my bike for 46 years in the London traffic increase the number of my red blood cells? - my breathing is superb, ...
- Hirsute 1 hour 40 min ago
I made a complaint within an hour of the story being published. I have zero faith that they will amend anything....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 58 min ago
Especially children, near a school, one might imagine? By a bus driver driving children to school?...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 2 min ago
TBF I think that's before she saw the light and got on her bike. Not so great if her views have been informed by Mr. Briggs though.
- Saracen888 2 hours 41 min ago
That's a great price. Just bear in mind Import duty and handling charges will be applied pre delivery.
- Griff500 4 hours 3 min ago
Yep, I appreciate your problem. I wouldn't buy a bike without at least sitting on the same frame configuration on a trainer in the shop, something...
- Secret_squirrel 5 hours 17 min ago
One less thing to clutter up your jersey pockets no? Though difficult to retrieve in a hurry...
Add new comment
48 comments
My dad (now in his late '80s) identified that he was no longer really comfortable driving, but due to not having an easy way around without the car kept on driving for 2 or 3 more years. In spite of failing eyesight, a bad shoulder that limited his ability to steer and self admitted poor reactions. In the end I bought his car to stop him driving, almost every panel on it is dented somewhere... Do feel bad when they struggle to get somewhere they need to go but I'd feel a lot worse if he drove nd killed someone...
I totally agree. Older drivers aged 80+ should be tested every two years and 90+ every single year. There's so many bad older drivers out there.
I've been saying this for years.
Well the roads are safer around Windsor after todays breaking news.
Too soon?
Some might say at least a couple of years too late - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46912691
To be fair, he did "voluntarily" surrender his licence after that incident.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47186875
Not for me.
I was of the opinion that older drivers are the worst, however, it seems that the media report on older drivers having accidents with cyclists more than they would a younger driver.
The courts are also at fault as they aren't hard enough on the 18-55 range of drivers when they hit a cyclist.
in general, we need a higher standard of drivers in this country.
Well done all on a good discussion looking at all sides of the argument, better than the typical Facebook discussions.
I'll be 70 in 18 months time. I am happy to take a driving test every couple of years if they ask the same of 18 to 30 year olds.
I think as we age, then bi-annual for drivers over 55 and 5 yearly for everyone else. I would like to see driver skill, road sense, reaction times and a theory test all included.
If you're border line in score, then a heavier insurance premium with a follow up test to assess if driving standard has improved/declined. If declined then removal of license until driver passes retest.
We can crack on with that once all of the over 70s have all passed their newly required tests or surrendered their licences
All drivers (should) have passed a test, but over time many drivers develop unsafe habits, some sooner, some later. To me it seems crazy that drivers are allowed to pass a test in their youth and their competency to drive is never assessed again.
I want every driver tested every 10 years, irrespective of age. The realisation that a test is forthcoming will keep drivers mindful that they shouldn't develop dangerous habits, and is they have, weed them out of the driving pool
Paradoxically, more carnage is caused by the drivers who have recently passed their test.
That is undeniably true, but doesn't alter the need to take unsafe elderly drivers off the road.
I looked into all this last time the topic came up, starting from the point of view that it's a no-brainer, get the old ga-ga's off the road.
However the stats didn't support my prejudice; older drivers do not kill proportionately more people than do younger drivers.
Possible reasons are that, as their faculties wane, old people tend to self-restrict their driving behaviour. They stick to familiar routes, during daylight, driving cautiously and slowly. It even annoys other drivers.
So if you are looking to target pre-emptively "unsafe" drivers, old age is not a useful parameter.
I think there is an issue with their physicality and being unable or unwilling to acknowledge a problem which can lead to accidents.
Younger drivers are just unwilling to drive safely.
I'd like to see some flexibility where new drivers only get to drive fiat500s or something. If you want to drive some absurd 300 bhp behemoth, you have to pass another higher level test. If you are old, you have some sort of assessment.
I agree; similar to the motorcycle system....were there are various levels were you're restricted to lower BHP bikes.
Whereas, pass your car test, and go and buy and car you've no hope of controlling.
Anyone, not just a police officer, can report to the DVLA their misgivings about a driver's competence. Although they don't have the resources to investigate every isolated incidence of poor driving, and anyway this is the job of the courts, they will take more notice of a sustained drop in standards. Indeed, this recently happened to my neighbour, who had a low-speed collision whilst reversing. Witnesses thought he seemed confused and unable to grasp what had happened and he was reported.
The DVLA received a couple of statements and on the strength of these summoned the chap for a free driving assessment at the local DVSA test centre. The assessment is relatively informal, was conducted by a senior examiner and was similar to a normal learners' test, but not marked to exactly the same standards. Based on the outcome drivers can, and do, have their licence revoked although they are free to take the basic test again if they wish. The overwhelming majority don't, which should be a relief to us all.
Useful to know. There's an elderly lady in a Micra near me that doesn't seem to ever get out of first gear, crawling along 60mph country lanes at 10mph. If a car approaches from the front or rear, she pulls in towards the verge and comes to a complete stop until they've passed! Really, really ought not to be behind the wheel.
I don't believe her behaviour to be dangerous. There is no such thing as a 60mph country lane. Only dickheads who consider that speed to be appropriate on narrow windy roads with poor visibility
10 mph is only marginally slower than an average bike speed, (I'm not talking about people like you and me) and at least she pulls over to let people past - sounds like she's fully aware of what's happening around her
And in any case, I'll bet she's not going actually going at 10 any more than you or I ride at 5mph and 40mph simultaneously....
I cannot fathom why folk think that low speed is dangerous.
You've got to ask yourself why she is driving like that - probably because she can't see properly. You might think it's ok on a country road, but what about a supermarket car park with pedestrians?
A while ago I was driving behind an old Frontera 4x4 that was going very slowly. Got to a sharp right hand bend and it didn't turn quickly enough - fully left the road, all four wheels on the verge, bouncing around before rejoining the carriageway. I though the driver was pissed. So followed them at a distance back to their house, where an old lady got out!
Yes it was low speed. But you can still do a lot of damage.
I don't actually. Your original anecdote painted a picture of a low-risk driver suffering prejudice because of her age. She was going too slow for you, and to top it off she was elderly.
This anecdote trumps the last due to lack of control - thank christ in this case speed was low! But again, prejudice found causation in the correlation of age and incompetence. It may be that your first thought was correct - the driver was pissed....
If we are actually going to look at risk v age we come back to young drivers, (particularly young male drivers, to bring in another profile) every. single. time. We all have anecdotes about them....
By all means test elderly drivers. At the same frequency that we test any driver
There's no prejudice here, it's a fact that our mental and physical abilities decline into old age. The question is how do you decide when to stop?
Currently, it's mainly down to the individual to decide. I'm not sure that's a great idea. Certainly from family experience it took two crashes for one relative and a few near misses for another before they hung up the car keys.
Inevitably there will come a point when I'm no longer safe to drive. I think I'd rather fail an eyetest, cognitive or reaction test and be told I no long meet the required standard, than come to realise that I'd had a few too many near do's.
I believe there is prejudice, as evinced by the anecdotal evidence, confusion of correlation and causation, and jumping to concludions that some here are doing.
It is true that eyesight declines with age - I was noting myself how my fine detail perception, and ability to see things close up are no longer what they were.
It is also true that happens at different rates for different people - my decline seems to be much less pronounced than Mrs Badger, and my eyesight has always been pretty good by any standards - even now it is better than many younger folk.
It's almost as if there needs to be proper eyesight standards for driving that are universally applied.....
This is no different from young folk whose ability to drive safely nose-dives immediately after passing their test, and often never recovers. This is also a function of age, specifically the mental capacity to perceive risk that is lacking in underdeveloped brains. Brain development is typically not complete until the mid 20s
I'm in complete agreement here, and to be clear (again) I'm in favour of regular testing. I just believe in ensuring that covering high risk groups is priority. This is not the elderly. Universal regular testing should be the norm.
PS
I read a really interesting break down of crash statistics. Not only were crashes less frequent in older drivers than the youngest group, but there were also fewer fatalities. The fatalities that there were were predominantly made up of the elderly drivers, due to injury or heart failure. The obverse held for younger drivers - it was 3rd parties that were more likley to be killed.
I'm trying to find the link now, will share it when I locate it. [edit; see Scirarcha's infogram below from the AA]
Why restrict that to elderly drivers?
Age is irreversably degenerative, sadly. Once those cognitive skills are gone they are not coming back. Younger drivers can be retrained, rehabilitated, or simply banned.
In other words, "take unsafe
elderlydrivers off the road". - I don't see the need to make a distinction for age...There is a lot of hand wringing about elderly drivers, usually accompanied by thin handwaving arguments as to why they are a special case for restriction, however it is invariably borne from bigotry rather than actual risk - similar to prejudice against cyclists leading to calls for bans, licencing etc. The risk from elderly drivers is certainly no greater than from young drivers.
Of course unfit drivers should be removed from the road, but concentrating on a particular age group from prejudice rather than established risk or evidence is deeply iniquitous, not to mention ineffective of achieving safer roads, and should be resisted for the meer distraction that it is.
It can also be a very gradual decline, so the loss of ability is often not apparent to the individual.
I remember as a kid, being amazed that I could see the leaves on trees when I came out of the opticians with my first pair of glasses! The decline in my eyesight was so gradual, I didn't realise what I was missing.
I wouldn't. Just that this story is about elderly unsafe drivers.
The whataboutery concerning young drivers is just deflecting from the subject. Young drivers are more likely to be dangerous. The causes are different.
No, it is about mistaking correlation for causation. The actual story is taken from a sample of 1. This is a notoriously crap method of formulating policy, tempting though it may be
Any effort in legislating against a low-risk group (whilst ignoring a high-risk group) is a wasted effort at best, and bigoted at worst. The whataboutery and deflection is actually implicit in singling out elderly drivers.
To be clear, I am for regular testing. Of all drivers.
Pages