£440 fine for 92-year-old who crashed into cyclist on Cambridge roundabout

zero_trooper wrote:

I know that there's medical confidentiality, but was there ever any enquiry to see if the motorist in this case had ever been advised to surrender their licence?

Confidentiality doesn't outrank a court order, so prosecutors could easily check this. However, maybe they did and there was nothing on the record; doctors differ widely in terms of advising patients on driving, which is why a more formalised system of checks and tests for senior citizens should be introduced rather than the present ad hoc system that relies both on doctors making correct decisions and patients fully disclosing their conditions.

Yes, it's all very ad hoc.

If only all parties involved in this incident could see... 😂

And of course not giving way to a road user already on the roundabout. 
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that all of that is considered to be meeting acceptable standards of driving. 

that in itself is a worrisome admission, just from a psychological perspective, though its that common point you often hear from drivers who diminish their responsibility for injuring a cyclist, because they believe the cyclist just shouldnt be there in the first place, in that if you were being safe cyclist, youd be riding in a field away from the cars, but cycle among cars and on your head be it and your fault and risk to be badly injured as a result.

Except the law doesn't say an average driver - it's quite possible for 80% of drivers to not be safe and competent.

you honestly believe the jurors think they themselves are not safe and competant drivers?

Thereofore any driving which 3 members of the jry indulge in will not secure a dangerous driving conviction, because three of them will do it, and therefore not consider it "far below the level of a competant driver"

wycombewheeler wrote:

you honestly believe the jurors think they themselves are not safe and competant drivers?

Thereofore any driving which 3 members of the jry indulge in will not secure a dangerous driving conviction, because three of them will do it, and therefore not consider it "far below the level of a competant driver"

This but for all jurors. Both those who drive but also most who don't. They'll likely use motor transport and their friends will. There's a "unlucky them" / "just and accident" / "but how else can she get about?" / "there but for the grace of god go I" effect. And unless the defendant has commited some other grievious social sin (drink-driving basically *) they're "one of us" unlike some other categories of lawbreakers. "Accidents" are accepted and tolerably competent driving is assumed - they've passed their test haven't they? I suppose it would be interesting to double-check this theory with cases of the unlicenced.

* You probably also look bad if you hit a police officer / children / killed an unborn child and don't look sorry. Equally if it's "obvious" that you're "not of good character" that might sway things.

My Favourite Statistic:-

98% of American drivers think they are above average

Not just American drivers.

This Stat came from an international survey.
Only 65% of Swedish drivers think hey are above average.
I don't have a figure for the UK. The 92 year old who caused this accident clearly thinks she is above average
Remember when you are out on the bike 50% of the drvers on the road are below average
 

Cycloid wrote:

Remember when you are out on the bike 50% of the drvers on the road are below average

That's mean!

.

What? You'll have to speak up as I'm not wearing my glasses

Don't care how many are below average - I care about how many reach the required standard ! In theory you can be below average but meet the standard. In reality, what % are driving to the standard?

wycombewheeler wrote:

you honestly believe the jurors think they themselves are not safe and competant drivers?

No. But that doesn't mean that there's a problem with the law. It means that there's a problem with how cases are prosecuted / juries are instructed.

The prosecution should be making the case with reference to the standards of driving laid down in law and the highway code, and those that would be applied to the granting of a licence, and the judge should be making it clear that that's the basis on which the jury should reach their decision - not with reference to their own or 'common' standards of driving.

mdavidford wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

you honestly believe the jurors think they themselves are not safe and competant drivers?

No. But that doesn't mean that there's a problem with the law. It means that there's a problem with how cases are prosecuted / juries are instructed.

The prosecution should be making the case with reference to the standards of driving laid down in law and the highway code, and those that would be applied to the granting of a licence, and the judge should be making it clear that that's the basis on which the jury should reach their decision - not with reference to their own or 'common' standards of driving.

Exactly - if the defendant had been taking their driving test and carried out this action/manoeuvre, would they have passed or failed said test?

• Pass - everything's fine but the jury may need their heads examining;
• Fail - 'nuff said.

mdavidford wrote:

No. But that doesn't mean that there's a problem with the law. It means that there's a problem with how cases are prosecuted / juries are instructed.

The prosecution should be making the case with reference to the standards of driving laid down in law and the highway code, and those that would be applied to the granting of a licence, and the judge should be making it clear that that's the basis on which the jury should reach their decision - not with reference to their own or 'common' standards of driving.

I believe, as do many others, that there is a problem with the law, as written. It currently points to a far too subjective standard, that jurors can decide for themselves. So long as they consider themselves reasonable drivers, under the wording of the law, they are free to judge that standard based on their own behavior and experience.

What you suggest of prosecutors and judges is reasonable. But would be made a whole lot easier, if the law pointed to such things as setting a reasonably objective reference or standard for safe and competent.

The relevant legislation provides an objective standard - it is "what would be expected of a competent and careful driver". Yes, that standard then has to be applied to a particular situation by humans who may interpret it differently, but it's very difficult (and arguably undesirable) to eradicate that. Legislation doesn't generally itemise particular circumstances which constitute the offence because that can make it inflexible, and inevitably it won't cater for every circumstance. But the law is not limited to the legislation, it is also developed in the courts. That's why it's important for judges to direct juries on the relevant law that they need to apply to the particular facts. 

quiff wrote:

The relevant legislation provides an objective standard - it is "what would be expected of a competent and careful driver".

Well since the court didn't provide me a standard competent and careful driver or a booklet setting out some criteria I'll just use myself - after all I know I'm one! (Or maybe I don't drive - but everyone has experience of driving so skip that).

Now, what would I expect of me?  It's been 40 years since my test but since I'm clearly competent...

quiff wrote:

Yes, that standard then has to be applied to a particular situation by humans who may interpret it differently, but it's very difficult (and arguably undesirable) to eradicate that. Legislation doesn't generally itemise particular circumstances which constitute the offence because that can make it inflexible, and inevitably it won't cater for every circumstance. But the law is not limited to the legislation, it is also developed in the courts. That's why it's important for judges to direct juries on the relevant law that they need to apply to the particular facts. 

It's a much more restricted domain but for speeding / DUI (even for things already illegal) / lots of regulations we do indeed itemise things. But driving's a collection of behaviours so OK - we don't want just a number here. That booklet aside, if only there were an already-agreed standard that we used to assess people's driving competence we could make use of here too? We might even have people who were qualified to assess such competencies who we could bring in as "expert" witnesses (courts have plenty of expertise in handling that).

But you're right, the law is certainly flexible. Indeed creative. Even though I believe you can be held to be legally "in charge" of your vehicle when not in it, merely being sat behind the wheel of a moving car before and after a crash can prove nothing ("I don't know what happened"). Or maybe it's just our strict and high standards of evidence rather than evidence of bias? Also incompetence seems to count as a defence or at least in mitigation.  Don't have handy examples to hand of not having insurance / a licence at all, sorry...

I'm not saying it's perfect, was just trying to explain that the law has plenty of these objective tests where the meaning of 'reasonable' or the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' is developed in cases, not legislation. 

chrisonatrike wrote:

Well since the court didn't provide me a standard competent and careful driver... I'll just use myself - after all I know I'm one!

My point is that part of the role of a judge in a jury trial is to give this guidance on the law - e.g. in this example, what the law has said to date about the standard of the competent and careful driver? Though I haven't done jury service or been to a driving trial, so I accept I don't know if / how well this happens in practice.

Even if you legislate to specify which actions are / are not competent and careful, it's still open to a juror to decide they disagree with the standard, judge it by their own standards, and find the defendant not guilty.

quiff wrote:

I'm not saying it's perfect, was just trying to explain that the law has plenty of these objective tests where the meaning of 'reasonable' or the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' is developed in cases, not legislation. 

I appreciate what you're saying on "objective" (e.g. judged by societal standards) but I think that where there is (a) known bias (why we have death by dangerous / careless anyway rather than charging murder / manslaughter) and (b) actual standards for a skill - both in law (e.g. speeding, DUI, illegal vehicle modifications) and per the highway code / driving test I think we should be leaning on those heavily. Asking the jury to assess per the standard of a reasonable person is one thing, asking them to assess per the standard of a competent driver (or horse rider, or unicylist...) is another.

Also they've got to grasp three levels (well - two per trial I guess) - careful and competent, below careful and competent and well below careful and competent.

You're quite right, for aught I know the advocates are taking them through the relevant parts of the highway code - specifically around a test of competent driving and where the levels above may be - in every case. Or the judges are providing direction. I doubt it - but I don't know.

quiff wrote:

Even if you legislate to specify which actions are / are not competent and careful, it's still open to a juror to decide they disagree with the standard, judge it by their own standards, and find the defendant not guilty.

Juries can always say black is white, true. The point of making things more quantifiable (e.g. "this would have been points / instant fail on the driving test" as evidence from a driving instructor) is to better assist with fair, less arbitrary judgement. These cases aren't just a judging general human behaviour but specific competencies. I expect (again - don't know) that in e.g. fraud trials there is some explanation of the more technical financial details even though some on the jury may know some of this. Rather than simply saying "do you think this falls below the standard of a careful and competent accountant"?

Exactly. I don't understand why the prosecution can't establish that to be "safe and competent" you should at least follow the highway code when driving on the road. Failure to follow the highway code would then be below the standard of a competent driver and therefore careless driving. This would lead to many low level convictions without needing collisions and hopefully would lead to more careful driving.

Madness, the concept of actually having to follow the highway code. You do realise that there's a whole page about speed limits in there...

But I'd go more for errors on driving tests, qualified experts on that one.

I doubt anyone would intend to drive over someone. There's a huge difference in criminal intent v an unfortunate accident where it's impossible to plan as if the trajectory of a snooker ball.

RGN007 wrote:

I doubt anyone would intend to drive over someone. There's a huge difference in criminal intent v an unfortunate accident where it's impossible to plan as if the trajectory of a snooker ball.

There are people who intend to do this, but they are few. But there are many thousands of people who appear not to care if they do, and are therefore willing not to pay attention to what they do with the 1000 kg or more that they allegedly control. And our culture doesn't give a shit if it all goes wrong.

The driver's insurer will pay any compensation (after trying to reduce liability, eg "only 2 of our insured's wheels went over you so here's half of what you might expect"). And the legal system almost agrees with the defendant, who "didn’t feel her driving fell below that of a safe and competent driver".

What definition of "safe" did she have in mind?