A 92-year-old driver who crashed into a cyclist on a roundabout in Cambridge, with the victim spending 10 days in intensive care as a result of the serious injuries he sustained, has been fined £440.
Ann Ruel was also banned from driving for six months, but has not driven since the crash earlier this year and has informed the DVLA that she does not wish to renew her licence, reports Peterborough Matters.
The motorist pleaded guilty by letter to driving without due care and attention after she struck the unnamed cyclist at the four lamps roundabout in Cambridge at around 1230pm on 21 January this year.
Lois Hutchings, prosecuting, told Peterborough Magistrates’ Court that the cyclist was already on the roundabout, which he had approached from Jesus Lane, when Ruel drove onto it from Victoria Avenue.
She said that Ruel had “failed to give way to the pedal cyclist,” and that “as a result the defendant has collided with the pedal cyclist, causing him serious injuries,” including a collapsed lung, dislocated shoulder and fractures.
“He spent ten days in intensive care in hospital and then three months as a wheelchair user.
“In a statement read to the court he said he twice thought he was going to die and during the incident he remembered the wheels going over his pelvis and it seeming dark as the car passed over him.
“The victim was unable to complete his degree as planned and had been due to start work in September.
“Ruel, who had a clean driving licence, told police that she had stopped at the roundabout and claimed she had a “clear view”.
The prosecutor added that Ruel, from Girton, “didn’t feel her driving fell below that of a safe and competent driver,” the standard required to satisfy the charge – although notwithstanding that, she did enter a guilty plea.
The more serious charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which was not charged in this case, requires the prosecution to show that the standard of driving “falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.”
Besides the fine and the ban from driving, Ruel was also told to pay court costs of £110 and a victim surcharge of £44.
As well as the ban, she was fined £440 and ordered to pay £110 costs and £44 victim surcharge.
In Great Britain, driving licences automatically expire when the holder reaches their 70th birthday, with the DVLA sending a reminder and an application form 90 days beforehand.
The licence must then be renewed every three years, and while healthcare professionals such as GPs or optometrists can advise older motorists to surrender it on health grounds, they cannot compel them to do so.
55 thoughts on “£440 fine for 92-year-old who crashed into cyclist on Cambridge roundabout”
Although that seems an
Although that seems an insultingly small fine for the damage caused, I think it might be appropriate in this case as the perp does not wish to renew her license. I just wish that kind of decision wasn’t left up to the conscience of the individual.
A reason to add mandatory
A reason to add mandatory retests every 3 years from 70. Very few courts are going to jail a 92 year old lady even if it is warranted, and if you can’t rely on the law then the Govt & dvla has to change its tack.
And, a reason why doctors
And, a reason why doctors/optometrists should have the power to compel people to hand in their driving license – see the horrific case in scotland (different legal system, mind) where a doctor recommended that John Johnstone hand in their license, they didn’t, and subsequently killed a cyclist (Hanno Garbe)
What’s worse is that GPs /
What’s worse is that GPs / Consultants who diagnose dementia in their patients refuse to inform DVLA.
Our family experience is that it’s incredibly difficult to stop a driver with dementia from driving.
Even after informing the local police, social care etc of the diagnosis and the relative being clearly unfit to drive the reality was that they continued to drive untaxed / uninsured / impaired for a whole year afterwards.
There was no shortage of “professionals” but in every case their response was that it was someone else’s job to sort the situation out. It’s almost as if someone has to be killed or seriously injured before the “system” does anything.
What is the significance of
What is the significance of the number 70? The drivers who most frighten me are probably around a third of that age which makes me favour compulsory re-tests for all drivers. Maybe every five years and in any case, immediately after a court conviction for any driving offence. But I hope in vain, no government will risk upsetting the Great British Driver.
An anecdote typical of so many ……
On a recent frosty morning I was very carefully pedalling my way along a local lane. Up ahead, on the apex of a sharp right bend was a young chap forlornly surveying the wreckage of his shiny new Mini. “Ice on the road,” he told me. “Absolutely nothing I could do.”
For a second I thought about enquiring whether he had troubled himself to watch a weather forecast, or to leave a few minutes early, or to drive a little slower, or to defrost all his frozen side windows. But no; my righteous frustration at his refusal to acknowledge any blame at all would simply have bounced off his hard shell of ignorance.
We, the vulnerable must just suck it up.
There’s nothing magic about
There’s nothing magic about the number 70, although it is the age already prescribed by law where driving licences start needing to be renewed and so it is a natural point to extend any age-related changes. If you look at a graph like the top one on this article, there does appear to be some evidence to support somewhere around the age of 70 as appropriate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489
I would agree (and the graph on that page would suggest) that young drivers are just as dangerous, if not more so, than older drivers. I would tend to agree that regular testing for everyone would make the roads safer.
However, I do think it is fair to identify a distinction between young drivers who choose to drive recklessly and older drivers who are attempting to drive safely but incapable of doing so due to age-related problems. I think young people would be perfectly capable of driving sensibly for the duration of a test in order to pass, but then revert to their normal manner of driving as soon as they are unsupervised. Therefore, more testing wouldn’t necessarily reduce the incidence of accidents among young drivers. I also note that testing every five years would not result in much additional testing amoung the most dangerous under-24 age group (the earliest re-test would be at age 22).
However, additional testing could be more effective at preventing older people who have become incapable of driving safely from continuing to do so.
Another option would be to insist that drivers have to be certified as fit to drive by a doctor before renewing a licence (and provide that certification alongside the application), rather relying on the current self-declaration approach.
OnYerBike wrote:
If we assume approximately 700,000 new drivers each year, taking an average of 3 tests to pass (probably an overestimate) that would be 2million anual tests.
If we now want to test the circa 30m drivers every 5 years that means an additional 6million tests per year, an incredible increase in testing requirements.
How’s about retesting as
How’s about retesting as follows;
Driving needs to be less of a right and more of an earned priviledge.
However, I’d say that in this digital age, these tests don’t necessarily need to be out on the open road, they could be in a simulator of some kind.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
So someone who is operating a two tonne vehicle, containing a tank of flammable liquid and powered by an internal combustion engine, on a regular basis, at speed, and in close proximity to other such vehicles or to the general public (either pedestrians or vulnerable road users)… They did a test which licenced them to use that machinery some time ago (one test, and then you’re pretty much good to go forever and ever).
Why isn’t it necessary or desirable for such an operator to keep refreshing their skills and making sure that they are safe to continue to operate such machinery?
(I mean, if you are in an industrial environment, are you required to keep refreshing your skills for (say) driving a forklift or a container crane? So why not cars?)
£440 for that?
£440 for that?
Was it particularly dark that lunchtime?
I hope the insurance pays out a substantial sum.
This is why cyclists need insurance ( and an mot and road road tax)
I got taken out by a coffin
I got taken out by a coffin dodger in late May 2020, who simply wasn’t paying attention.
Smashed scapula, dislocated collar bone, 10 broken ribs, fractured sternum and a punctured lung.
Got a brief onboard with a history of taking on cycling cases and am now just awaiting a 5 figure payout from his car insurers.
It wasn’t about me having insurance, which I did, but me being willing to sue his arse and not taking no for an answer.
Originally his insurance wouldn’t pay a penny as they said I was going too fast and couldn’t be seen.
GPS data overlayed onto maps with photos of the scene taken from both directions put pay to that, sharpish.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic
Sorry, I was being sarcastic about insurance.
It’s just people say cyclists should have insurance as though the damage and danger are equal.
Seemingly lack of remorse
Seemingly lack of remorse from this one, still not feeling that her awful driving that resulted in such injury to an innocent young man, did not fall below that of a safe and competent driver (very odd definition of safe…) and then not to even bother showing up to court.
Her claim of having a clear view seems doubtful too, or perhaps this was one of those foolish cyclists that can use their special powers to defy all known laws of physics and only materialise underneath careful driver’s motor vehicles.
I wish the victim a speedy recovery.
ktache wrote:
Her claim was utter b’lox!
Why do we as a society wait
Why do we as a society wait until something goes terribly wrong before realising there is a problem?
Re testing of older drivers must happen, they DO have an excess of accidents (although not as bad as young males)
She tried to plead guilty and not guilty at the same time.
If she turned up at court full of remorse with a decent lawyer “momentary lapse ‘M Lud” she could have got off scott free
In all fairness im in favour
In all fairness im in favour or mandatory retesting of all ages every 5 or so years. It only needs to be a retake of the theory test covering all the new stuff that’s come out.
All the current driver’s aren’t going to know about the upcoming changes to the highway code unless they have to re take a test
Drivers can have a stroke at
Drivers can have a stroke at the wheel at any age. Thankfully extremely rare, but a cut off age is ageist as many 70 year olds are more conscientious than some much younger drivers.
One issue that I have complained about (I’m a recently retired nurse) were the amount of those driving with poor diabetes control, especially those on insulin and refuse to monitor adequately. I’ve twice contacted the police where very frail drivers were concerned as the police had a tactful way of catching them once they were made aware. As said earlier, the GPs took no action but my own father nearly hit a pushchair at 92 because he couldn’t feel his feet. There’s so many conditions that make driving or riding any projectile risky at any age, including taking painkillers.
I’m 74 and aware that my
I’m 74 and aware that my eyesight is not what it was.
My optician says I am fine to drive. The moment he says I should think about it I’ll stop.
As you get older all sorts of things get worse, Cognition, flexibility, reaction times, memory, etc, At the same time experience and responsibility tend to increase.
It is still a fact that old people are over represented in accident statistics
This is after the fact that a lot of them compensate by not driving at night and on busy roads.
I can see no reasonable option to asking us to take a test to show that we fit to drive.
It’s not ageist just common sense
Cycloid wrote:
In lieu of mandatory retests, I’d like to see a driving “black box” being fitted to as many cars as possible. Similar to the software that some insurance companies have on phone apps, it could measure the accelerating/braking forces and timing of maneouvres to produce a metric that shows how smooth your driving is. I think that’d provde an early insight that faculties are failing if you normally drive at say a 70% rating and it starts dropping to below 50% or some other noticeable decrease. It could function as a continual driving assessor which could also be valuable in highlighting certain diseases if metrics suddenly change.
Spot on
Spot on
We can do almost anything we want with technology now.
Drivers could be logged every time they broke the speed limit, and receive a fine (+ points) at the end of the month. The investment in tehnology would pay for itself in no time
Nearly all the Highway code could be enforced
It won’t happen because it would be too unpopular with motorists and no government would pass the legislation.
Anyway we will all be sitting in autonomous vehicles soon
Cycloid wrote:
I was thinking that they wouldn’t be linked up to ensure law compliance, but they’d be more of an informational system for the driver – that way there’s not an immediate detriment to using one. Ideally, insurance companies would also make use of them to provide lower premiums if you’re a safer driver which would provide another incentive.
Maybe aggregate the anonymised data to instruct city planners and road designers about traffic flows and poor junction designs etc.
Both would be best
Both would be best
hawkinspeter wrote:
Hmm… I’m not convinced that this idea would be effective at preventing the sorts of incidents like the one in this article. A person can be driving very slowly and smoothly and appear (to a black box) to be perfectly safe. Until they slowly and smoothly drive into something they didn’t see.
OnYerBike wrote:
You may be right, but I suspect there are factors that could show when drivers’ abilities are declining. Maybe average speed decreases as their eyesight slowly worsens and the driver might not be that aware of the changes.
Average speed decreases over
Average speed decreases over time as congestion increases !
There is a fundamental flaw
There is a fundamental flaw in the test described above for careless/dangerous driving.
As driving standards fall it will become harder and harder to find any driver guilty of either charge as how can a juror decide if, for instance, speeding over 20mph limits is any way careless if they know that surveys show 80%+ of drivers admit they ignore such speed limits.
We end up with the indefensible position that the law says that it is not dangerous or even careless to drive in a way that leads to deaths.
I think jurors should be polled and any that admit saying driving over someones pelvis is not that far below the standards they expect from a driver, should have their own licence cancelled on the spot.
Except the law doesn’t say an
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
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:
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:-
My Favourite Statistic:-
98% of American drivers think they are above average
Not just American drivers.
Not just American drivers.
This Stat came from an
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:
That’s mean!
.
.
What? You’ll have to speak up
What? You’ll have to speak up as I’m not wearing my glasses
Don’t care how many are below
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:
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:
Exactly – if the defendant had been taking their driving test and carried out this action/manoeuvre, would they have passed or failed said test?
mdavidford wrote:
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
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:
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…
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,
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.
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 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.
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
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
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
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:
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?
She didn’t feel her driving
She didn’t feel her driving fell below that of a safe and competent driver… A safe and competent driver doesn’t leave someone is hospital for 10 days.
that in itself is a worrisome
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.
So not just knocked him off,
So not just knocked him off, but then also drove over him. But just careless I see.
If only all parties involved
If only all parties involved in this incident could see… ?
And of course not giving way
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.
I know that there’s medical
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?
This would also have an impact on insurance risk. Imagine applying/renewing motor insurance and stating you have been medically advised to surrender your licence, but no you think that your driving is fine. Insurance companies wouldn’t touch you with a barge pole.
zero_trooper wrote:
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.
Yes, it’s all very ad hoc.