....but cyclists

Terrible tragedy ... not possible to have prevented it ... these are thankfully incredibly rare ... thoughts and prayers ...

I imagine that while people are driving vehicles which can't automatically take over and safely halt them in the event of driver incapacitation there's a certain baseline rate of this.  As Rendel has pointed out, this and other medical conditions can and do just strike at any point in life - some with no prior indication (certainly none that we can currently assess).

But perhaps it might be possible to reduce that somewhat (not to zero) by having periodic medical checks as per pilots or perhaps like the HGV equivalent we have?  But is that logistically practical for the current number of drivers (although noting the D4 medical is staged by age) - e.g. mass motoring?

Certainly totally incompatible with our current "you pass, and you're in for life" licencing.

As to vehicle size ... unfortunately we've been successfully conned by the motor trade AND it's a bit like a "status AND safety" arms race now.

I'd hope that she doesn't drive again, and she won't be legally able to without demonstrating that her epilepsy is under control. And I absolutely agree that there's no place for such vehicles in an urban (or really any) environment and they should be banned. 

But this does sound like an incident where (from the point of purchasing the car at least) the driver couldn't have done anything different. It's a tragedy for her, as I imagine it would be for any of us had we caused the deaths of two small children. Nothing compared to the tragedy they and their families are going through, but I can't imagine how anyone "normal" wouldn't be haunted by having done that for the rest of their lives.

We're not affected by any of this, we're just consuming a news story. Nobody involved is under any obligation, and it doesn't make anything any better, to be issuing public statements of contrition or the like. The public policy of whether these cars are acceptable (they aren't) is the public's business: how anyone involved in the actual event feels about it isn't. It might be an unsatisfying narrative, but we're not the ones with any right to that information. 

The other day a Ford Raptor was parked up beside me. The bonnet came nearly half way up my windows. The tyres pretty much up to my bonnet. I walked past and  it was frightening that if the driver lost control or was distracted and hit a human or vehicle everyone was dead bar the driver of the beast. The driver himself was well dressed and his vehicle was all shiny so obviously not being used for work of any description. 

Raptor : Bird of prey.
Just the mindset required when driving on UK roads.

Hirsute wrote:

Raptor : Bird of prey. Just the mindset required when driving on UK roads.

See also Warrior, Grenadier, Touareg, Defender, Renegade...even names like Macan (Porsche, means tiger) and Kodiaq (Skoda, largest brown bear) have fairly unsubtle "I'm the biggest beast in the jungle and can rip you up if I want" connotations.

I also wonder what this trip involved and whether use of a 4x4 was really necessary?

HoarseMann wrote:

I also wonder what this trip involved and whether use of a 4x4 was really necessary?

We don't even know whether it was a proper journey yet. Was she going to work, or had she popped out for coffee?

According to the standard understanding those both count no?  Different and defined start and end, whereas if you cycle and stop for a coffee you'll still just have done a purposeless loop from your house...

Snark aside I think this is sort of the common understanding - people drive cars *to* places even if for leisure when they get there.  Transport.  Bikes?  Apparently not - that's more like "going for a jog" but less worthy.  Apart from a few places which are all in Europe anyway and can be dismissed for "reasons".

But that can apply to many vehicles that people buy, are they really necessary?

I am  more concerned about the provision of a new blanket claim for drivers to add to thier list of excuses:

• Momentary lapse
• Sun in my eyes
• Looked but couldn't see them
• Came out of nowhere
• The road is dangerous
• The road is too narrow
• Had an eplieptic seizure 

You forgot the "have no recollection"

giff77 wrote:

You forgot the "have no recollection"

Sorry I thought that only applied to politicians, when being asked about anything non-trivial for which they might be considered accountable, (Iraq inquiry) or high grade staff of Post Office/Fujitsu or thier supporting vast realm of legal "professionals" when being asked to explain thier (in)action in prosecutions.

Silly me 

BikingBud wrote:

I am  more concerned about the provision of a new blanket claim for drivers to add to thier list of excuses:

• Had an eplieptic seizure 

Having an epileptic seizure is not something somebody can simply claim as an excuse in the same way as the other things you mention, it is a provable condition and sadly some people who were not aware they had the condition will suffer their first seizure when driving. As I said on another thread, some form of medical episode always seemed the most likely explanation once the possibility that the woman was on drink or drugs or was deliberately acting maliciously were ruled out. I'm afraid I find it a bit disappointing the way some people have automatically gone for the "she must be lying" line, it does happen and sadly in this case it has had appalling consequences but that does not mean it's not the truth. In such a high-profile case with such a tragic outcome the CPS will have undoubtedly carried out a very thorough investigation and they would not refuse to charge the driver unless they were convinced the mitigation is genuine.

Although it is important to note Mark Hodson's comment

"Drivers medical report at the Coroners Inquest should be interesting , as will be the evidence from the examining physician."

I think following bin lorry man in scotland, people are a little sceptical.

Hirsute wrote:

Although it is important to note Mark Hodson's comment

"Drivers medical report at the Coroners Inquest should be interesting , as will be the evidence from the examining physician."

I think following bin lorry man in scotland, people are a little sceptical.

Indeed, I said elsewhere that's where we'll see the reasoning behind the CPS decision. Of course there's a chance that she knew about a condition and didn't report it, and if that's the case she should have had the book thrown at her, but a number of commenters on here and elsewhere have gone straight for the "she's obviously making it up" accusation, which seems wrong to me.

Having an epileptic seizure is not something somebody can simply claim as an excuse...

Oh yes they can! Not that I'm saying she did, because we don't have the information, but you can just claim to have had a first fit, especially if there are no reliable witnesses. The 'patient' then goes through the usual EEG and MR brain imaging. Of course it could turn out that there is a convincing 'focus' on EEG or a convincing 'lesion' on MR and that would be the end of any dispute about it being a tragic unforeseeable accident, but it could also be that there's just a load of waffle in the reports, such as 'non-specific delta waves in the temporal region' or 'focal brain abormalities of unknown significance' which many of us would display if we went off for a scan. The doctors are not in the business of saying she didn't have a seizure, because they weren't there and it can't be excluded after the event, and I suspect 'confidentiality' may be enlisted to limit the details given at the inquest. It could all just go through 'on the nod' because proving she didn't have a fit would be impossible. If there's a lot of deployment of 'confidentiality', many of us would be suspicious

Rendel Harris wrote:

BikingBud wrote:

I am  more concerned about the provision of a new blanket claim for drivers to add to thier list of excuses:

• Had an eplieptic seizure 

Having an epileptic seizure is not something somebody can simply claim as an excuse in the same way as the other things you mention, it is a provable condition and sadly some people who were not aware they had the condition will suffer their first seizure when driving. As I said on another thread, some form of medical episode always seemed the most likely explanation once the possibility that the woman was on drink or drugs or was deliberately acting maliciously were ruled out. I'm afraid I find it a bit disappointing the way some people have automatically gone for the "she must be lying" line, it does happen and sadly in this case it has had appalling consequences but that does not mean it's not the truth. In such a high-profile case with such a tragic outcome the CPS will have undoubtedly carried out a very thorough investigation and they would not refuse to charge the driver unless they were convinced the mitigation is genuine.

It is interesting to see what may or may not be claimed by people involved in catstrophic incidents:

2015_Shoreham_Airshow_crash

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6754493/British-cyclist-killed-...

https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/18143039.sainsburys-lorry-driv...

I hope the coroner's inquest will make this clearer. Having seen some of the results of court cases in the past two weeks, I have absolutely no confidence that if a driver crashed into me and killed me, the law would be there to give me justice. "Just didn't see them" came up twice - sorry no, three times. No, four times. Only one person ended up with a proper penalty. And that was a £240 fine for killing another human being.

One driver has been banned from driving for five years, but I have put a marker in my diary, for the day she comes back to court to protest at that severity and asks for it to be removed. 

One of the cases was so ludicrous that it was clear the rozzers started at the point "How can we make sure this poor lady walks free from court?", and brought in victim-blaming (no helmet, no hi-vis on a sunny day) and claiming bushes and other obstructions where there were none as we saw photos of the crash scene.