- 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
Jim Tassell (Hampshire Police)Driver who killed cyclist could not read number plate three metres away
An elderly driver who hit and killed a cyclist when unable to read a registration plate three metres away has been jailed for six months for causing death by careless driving.
Peter Gardner was sentenced on Friday at Salisbury Crown Court having pleaded guilty. The court heard that the 82-year-old's eyesight had been far short of the distance motorists are required to be able to read a number plate from (20 metres), and that Gardner had been told by an optician he may be developing cataracts, but did not arrange a follow-up appointment.
Prosecutor Berenice Mulvanny told the court Gardner was driving in the same direction as Jim Tassell and, "Witnesses described [Mr Tassell] being catapulted two metres into the air. All the witnesses said Jim could be seen."
In his sentencing remarks, the judge said Gardner must have been aware his eyesight was failing before Friday 23 July 2021 when the driver hit 70-year-old Mr Tassell on the B3400 between Andover Down and Hurstbourne Priors at around 10am.
Mr Tassell was rushed to Southampton General Hospital by air ambulance but died five days later, with his family now pleading with elderly drivers to make sure they are medically and legally fit to drive.
"We are pleased the judge imposed a custodial sentence as this gives us a small piece of justice. We hope this sentence acts as a warning to any elderly driver with poor eyesight to ensure they are medically and legally fit to drive," the Tassell family said in a statement.
"We urge anyone who is concerned about an elderly driver to act so other families do not have to go through the pain and devastation that was inflicted upon us."
Mr Tassell was nearing his 50th wedding anniversary and in her victim impact statement wife Stephanie said Gardner's "arrogance and selfishness" had killed her husband, while son Ben said the driver had robbed "my mum of her husband and of her world".
"It is abundantly clear that you should not have been behind the wheel of a car. You have robbed my children of the best granddad," Mr Tassell's daughter Emma added.
Police Sergeant Spencer Wragg, of the county's Roads Policing Unit, stressed all drivers, regardless of their age, "Have a responsibility to ensure they are fit and healthy".
"This was a tragic and completely avoidable death," he said.
"If Peter Gardner had made sure he was safe to drive then this collision would not have happened, saving the Tassell family the pain and turmoil they have been through.
"All drivers, no matter their age, have a responsibility to ensure they are fit and healthy. By getting behind the wheel with poor eyesight, you are putting your own life and the lives of other innocent road users at risk.
"If you are concerned about your eyesight, or the eyesight of a loved one who drives, please find help and advice at https://olderdrivers.org.uk/”
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- quiff 48 min 23 sec ago
Ah yes, just spotted where "performance line" is quoted on the website. Couldn't see any that fall into both 'evolution' and 'performance' line...
- anotherflat 56 min 44 sec ago
Road tubeless? Worst upgrade I ever made, hoping when I get round to trying over Xmas that I can get the new (non-tubeless, so hopefully a slacker...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 1 min ago
TRP cable-actuated hydraulic calipers, haven't tried them myself but reviews generally rate them as better than cable-only brakes such as Sora. I...
- wtjs 1 hour 14 min ago
And we can be sure that Police Scotland would be similarly disinterested...
- wtjs 1 hour 18 min ago
The self-professed cyclists are really self-claimed cyclists of the 'I'm a cyclist myself' variety
- lesterama 1 hour 29 min ago
I used to have the good fortune of watching Croydon disappear into the distance every workday afternoon, from the comfort of my commuter train. It...
- slc 2 hours 29 min ago
They should read scampercraft and not exaggerate the danger of scuttling along. I discourage squirrel predation by acting like one.
- HalfDanHalfBiscuit 2 hours 39 min ago
You can get the Varia for £10 less from Decathlon.
- Geoff H 3 hours 13 min ago
Perhaps they should apply the same standard to dangerous, unsafe, poorly designed roads and COMPLETELY rip them out rather than "fix" or "redesign"...
Add new comment
37 comments
Why is flying safer than driving?
Might it be that although in principle hanging around up in the air without a parachute is in principle more risky, the airline industry is highly regulated so that:
* Planes are mechanically sound. How many aeroplanes fly in the UK without the equivalent of MOT and service history? How many planes fly with "beta" software for safety critical systems (the answer was one but they grounded the 737 Max).
* Pilots have to be physically fit to a far higher degree than drivers, including vision.
* Pilots have zero tolerance system for drink and drugs. How many drivers are breathalysed the next day and fail because of prior night drinking?
* Pilots are continuously trained and reassessed.
* Pilots have strict procedures to follow.
* There is a copilot to assist the pilot and take over if the main pilot is compromised.
In other words, the human element is reduced as much as possible. Given that we have the equivalent of several plane crashed on the road every year, why aren't the principles of safe aviation applied to make safer ground travel?
Plus of course the sky's a big place so planes don't follow each other nose to tail crammed into a space only just wider than their wingspan with other planes coming in the opposite direction!
...and pedestrians generally are not allowed anywhere near them when they are moving.
The quadrangle rule restricts aircraft to a different altitude depending on their heading so that 2000ft vertical separation is maintained in the Open FIR outside air traffic control. Continuous position broadcast and radar (redundancy) provide ATC with real time monitoring and direction within controlled airspace.
Of course the mark one eyeball is used by the pilot in charge who is responsible for the safety of the aircraft and is subject to regular testing. Safety First is how aviation works at every level...
It's because of the old codgers I'm wearing a cateye viz450 on my tail. It's no guarantee, I know. It's the hot heads and doddering old puffins that keep me guessing and on my toes.
What a terrible story. Sincere condolences to the family.
Four years ago I had a routine eye test and told I had cataracts and should not drive until sorted. My wife drove us home and I didn't drive again until my cataracts had been dealt with and I was told I was now safe to drive. It was no inconvenience not to drive and I also started to use buses when my wife was not available to drive me.
Sorry mate, I didnt see you, I had <blank> in my eyes!
Acceptable answers: [sun, cataracts, LSD gels, hate, spite, sunlit uplands, flags, bile, hate for meghan, contempt, Boris fridge magnets, smartphone glare,...]
Suggestions welcome.
Mote, beam, forest.
https://mobile.twitter.com/markandcharlie/status/1567108743199866883
Just over 4% of the drivers stopped on #OpClosePass in the #HodsonandHudson days failed the eyesight test and had their licence immediately revoked as a result.
That's a terrible case. My condolences to the family of the victim.
I do think health checks should be compulsory for elderly drivers, including eye tests.
.
The photo at the head of this article is of the victim.
The Metro has a photo of the offender:
It still surprises me that we can get a licence to operate a fast, heavy, dangerous machine at 17 but we don't have to demonstrate any continued competence or fitness to keep hold of that licence.
I think the time has come for us to re-test at least every 10 years, every 5 if previously banned, and more regularly as we get older to prove that we're still safe and that should include health e.g. reaction times and eyesight as a minimum.
It's a bit lopsided that we have to MOT the car every year to prove that it's roadworthy and yet the most dangerous part of any car is the organic bit behind the wheel.
I remember a R4 prog about ten years ago, which featured an optician bemoaning the fact that he couldn't report drivers with inadequate vision for driving to the DVLA. It is clear that many people think that their ability to drive is more important than other people's lives.
But I've just googled it, and they can now, from the General Optical Council:
"You should inform the DVLA/DVA where:
you have assessed that a patient may not be safe to drive; and
you consider that they will not or cannot inform the DVLA/DVA themselves; and
you have a concern for road safety in relation to the patient and/or the wider public."
It would be interesting to find out what the optician did in this case.
I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be using eye/health services to deal with road danger - it should be obvious to observers that certain drivers are barely in control of their vehicle e.g. difficulty staying within their lane or spotting hazards very late. There's an overall cost to society if people are dissuaded from seeking medical attention (including eye health) so I don't think that these rare cases make it worthwhile to have opticians reporting patients.
What we need is more police dealing with traffic and definitely better resources to deal with dashcam submissions. I daresay that a car black-box would have flagged up a driver with poor eyesight.
You mean we should all be grasses and vigilantes ?!
Health and safety is the responsibility of everyone. Personally, I'd rather we used driving bans instead of fines to simply remove the worst drivers from the roads (even if temporarily) and back that up with insta-prison for anyone caught driving whilst banned.
Just joking HP.
2/2 so far for my w/e submissions. The anti cyclists at Essex police must be on hols.
For a first driving whilst banned I'd accept further bans with tagged strict curfew. I know it's yet another chance, but it is more than a little more of a ban and a small fine.
Of course further driving or breaking curfew could result in time inside, perhaps weekends and nights if they are working.
More crushing of vehicles.
Alas, aging people with impaired functionality are often quite good at masking it, in a way that gets a pass from other people around them. Could be eyesight, or memory loss, mobility problems &c - family might think "hmm, that's a bit weird" but go no further. Professionals are much better at spotting these things; they ask the right questions. Nobody else is goïng to report a driver for slowly losing their ability to drive safely, except maybe possibly if they're a professional driver for a big business and the boss gets suspicious about a pattern of near-misses.
I don't feel great about adding an extra reporting/regulatory burden to opticians, nurses, &c - but surely if it has a public health benefit, by protecting the health of others, not just the health of that particular patient/customer...
One advantage of prioritising traffic policing is that we wouldn't rely on friends and family to notice anything - just impartial police/other traffic.
Your earlier point about black boxes though is an important one. A black box would detect frequent hard braking for example, showing that a driver was only seeing potential hazards late. An algorithm would highlight this as an issue. If the issue was repeated over time, it would reveal a pattern of late braking and provide an alert.
Can you tell me how you can tell whether someone has epilepsy from their driving? The idea that medical professionals shouldn't report impairing conditions to the DVLA is ludicrous.
Unfortunately, epilepsy is likely to manifest in a loss of control and likely a crash. The idea behind not having medical professionals report conditions is to avoid the unintended consequences of people not seeking medical advice if they think it might deprive them of their driving license. I believe the DVLA relies on self-reporting of most conditions. It's not so much ludicrous as a trade-off between two undesirable outcomes (not banning drivers vs people not seeking medical attention) and it appears to me that these kinds of incidents are rare.
This: a doctor friend once explained to me that although the great majority of her patients with epilepsy play it by the book, for the ones that wouldn't she'd sooner be able to give them treatment that massively lessened the chances of an attack while driving than have them avoid getting any medication and carrying on driving anyway. It's not ideal but, as you say, probably the best tradeoff achievable.
From https://
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment data/file/706517/older-car-drivers-factsheet.
pdf
11% of collisions for drivers 70+. That's not massive, but I wouldn't say it was rare. Some kind of medical when you renew a driving license doesn't strike me as unreasonable (i.e. every 10 years, then every 3 years once you're 70). Perhaps something along the lines of the HGV medical test.
As a percentage of all RTCs, I'd still consider it rare, but don't have any figures to hand. A simple eye test would be easy to implement for renewing a licence and possibly a reaction test (e.g. catch a falling ruler).
Interesting factsheet - although the obvious limitation is that the contributory factor is "largely subjective as they reflect the opinion of the reporting officer" and that a general decline in eyesight, reactions or ability might underly many of the factors, even if the officer doesn't record an obvious mental or physical illness or disability
From that table, older drivers are more likely than average to fail to look properly (fail to see), more likely to fail to judge speed correctly, more likely to carry out a poor turn or manoeuvre, more likely to lose control, more likely to be dazzled by the sun, and more likely to be nervous, uncertain or panic. All would generally fit with the narrative of a declining ability to safely operate a motor vehicle in older drivers.
Although I still think retests every 5 or 10 years (maybe requiring a valid medical cert) would pick up as much as Police or black boxes. Of course there is extra costs involved and lots of work by the government to ensure testing centre capacities. Might also save some lives as early symptoms of medical conditions get picked up at these enforced regular checks.
Ideally do both - retests and sufficient road policing. My issue with retests is that people may drive differently on a test and be on their best behaviour.
Pages