2 years for elderly lady who killed a motorcyclist and child

downfader

Has been very hotly debated on the local paper website. Ignoring the moral implications of carrying a child as pillion (which I dont see a problem with as long as she can a) hold on ok and b) has been allowed to try it out on a shorter, more safe journey to see that she can be seated ok)... a number of people claiming to know the driver in question seem to think that because she is elderly and sorry that she should be let off.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4104421 ... pdaughter/

It should be said that a very large group of people (family and riders that knew Mr Stubbs) have testified to his care on the roads in the local paper and in court already.

Interesting reading and I'm sure it will get to you one way or another

giant_man

Absolutely disgusting. Yet again do we see a death caused by a driver, who in this case, is so old she shouldn't be on the road. Until this stupid and pointless Government changes the law regarding old drivers, should be given 20 years not 2 for gods sake!!!

Tom Butcher

Humans will always make mistakes. As far as it is reported in that link it was a momentary lapse of concentration - the consequences are terrible but for me 2 years is too much - 20 years would be totally barbaric.

downfader

Tom Butcher wrote:

Humans will always make mistakes. As far as it is reported in that link it was a momentary lapse of concentration - the consequences are terrible but for me 2 years is too much - 20 years would be totally barbaric.

Momentary... every 2 days a week for several years it should be said. Or atleast that was what was reported in a previous article. As the user BITTAROUGH on there says - can you really trust the papers for the facts, and its quite true in some cases.

top_bhoy

It is expected that licence holders attain a certain standard and to maintain that standard when driving. Doing a U-turn in a completely unsuitable location and causing the death of two entirely innocent people does not meet my opinion that the licence holder in this case met that expected driving standard. It would seem to me that 2 years is entirely appropriate in this case, irrespective of age.

The question which should be asked is why in many other cases, it appears that in the past, the guilty have been treated in a far more lenient and unacceptable fashion.

KeithG

giant mancp wrote:

Absolutely disgusting. Yet again do we see a death caused by a driver, who in this case, is so old she shouldn't be on the road.

That was a thoughtless and stupid rant.
73 isn't "old" for goodness sake and the facts about older drivers mean that statistically they are safer than younger ones, their reaction times may be slower but their driving strategies (slower and more cautious, less risk taking behaviour) mean that the insurance industry know this and adjust their premiums accordingly.
No, I am not old myself or even close to it, I just recognise brainless ageism when I read it.

schmako

Hardly, old people should definately have some sort of competence test on the roads every few years. I've seen some totally stupid older drivers out there. FACT their reactions are slower, their sight is worse and there is more traffic on the road than back in their day.

Cunobelin

Schmako wrote:

Hardly, old people should definately have some sort of competence test on the roads every few years. I've seen some totally stupid older drivers out there. FACT their reactions are slower, their sight is worse and there is more traffic on the road than back in their day.

Double edged sword, but as the original post said - the decrease in risk taking behaviour, compensation and behavioural adaptation make older drivers safer

However I agree with more frequent testing - but lets apply it where the risk really is...
The most dangerous drivers will vary according to the "measure" of danger.

Offences wise it is the middle aged "rep" who is more likely to need retesting on a regular basis

Death and injury wise it is the under 25 male who is the risk and should be retested at the greater frequency.

Steve Kish

I read somewhere that about 90% of road accidents are caused by driver error rather than car faults.

If this is so, then how ridiculous that cars have to be tested annually for road-worthyness but that their drivers don't :!:

unclemalc

I have mentioned on other threads that I was taken out last w/e by an 'elderly' lady (70+ and uses a cane to walk), who admitted to basically 'driving badly'.

In the follow-up, the Police said that they were not taking the case further as ...well I wasn't killed and she is an old lady who is sorry.... :shock:

We'll see what her insurance comapny offers.....

ozzzyosborn206

its rediculous, i can't stand following an old person driving who can barely see over the sterring wheel driving at 20mph in the middle of the road, then when a car comes the other way they just stop still bang in the middle of the road, i know someone whos wife was knocked off her bike by an old guy, there was 9 witnesses, 8 of whom all said he hit her causing her to fall, one said he did not so the case was not taken any further. Guess who said he didn't hit her.... his wife in the car sat next to him! if this had been two 18 years old i get the feeling the storey would have been very different don't you?