Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

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

Victim spent 10 days in intensive care following incident in January

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.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

55 comments

Avatar
zero_trooper | 3 years ago
4 likes

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.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to zero_trooper | 3 years ago
4 likes

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.

Avatar
zero_trooper replied to Rendel Harris | 3 years ago
0 likes

Yes, it's all very ad hoc.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism | 3 years ago
10 likes

So not just knocked him off, but then also drove over him. But just careless I see. 

Avatar
Rua_taniwha replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 3 years ago
5 likes

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

Avatar
Surreyrider replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 3 years ago
0 likes

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. 

Avatar
kenyond | 3 years ago
11 likes

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.

Avatar
Awavey replied to kenyond | 3 years ago
4 likes

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.

Avatar
ooldbaker | 3 years ago
7 likes

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.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to ooldbaker | 3 years ago
1 like

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

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
5 likes

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"

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
3 likes

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.

Avatar
Cycloid replied to wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
2 likes

My Favourite Statistic:-

98% of American drivers think they are above average

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to Cycloid | 3 years ago
3 likes

Not just American drivers.

Avatar
Cycloid replied to OldRidgeback | 3 years ago
1 like

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
 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Cycloid | 3 years ago
9 likes

Cycloid wrote:

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

That's mean!

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
3 likes

.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rendel Harris | 3 years ago
7 likes

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

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Cycloid | 3 years ago
2 likes

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?

Avatar
mdavidford replied to wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
3 likes

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.

Avatar
brooksby replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
2 likes

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.
Avatar
Bishop0151 replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
quiff replied to Bishop0151 | 3 years ago
0 likes

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. 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to quiff | 3 years ago
1 like

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...

Avatar
quiff replied to chrisonabike | 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to quiff | 3 years ago
0 likes

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"?

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
3 likes

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.

Avatar
ktache replied to Bungle_52 | 3 years ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
RGN007 replied to ooldbaker | 3 years ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
TheBillder replied to RGN007 | 3 years ago
6 likes
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?

Pages

Latest Comments