- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Glyn Straw (South Yorkshire Police/family)Driver who failed roadside eyesight test given suspended sentence for killing cyclist returning home from cycling club ride
An elderly driver whose eyesight was not good enough to be on the road has been banned from driving for five years, ordered to pay £2,000 and sentenced to a suspended five-month prison sentence having pleaded guilty to causing the death by careless driving of a cyclist.
Glyn Straw (seen in the picture illustrating this story) was cycling home from a Sitwell Cycling Club ride on 4 September 2022 when he was hit and killed by James Wardle, 83, the motorist having failed to see him on Pleasley Road in Rotherham, colliding with him and causing the 54-year-old to go over the roof of the car.
South Yorkshire Police said witnesses stopped and called 999 but Mr Straw died at the scene. When officers arrived, Wardle failed a roadside eyesight test and was unable to read a number plate at a distance of 20 metres.
It was later discovered that he had degenerative eyesight problems that had played a part in the collision, a medical issue that was undiagnosed prior to Mr Straw's death.
The cyclist had been socialising with fellow members of his cycling club at a local pub before leaving to ride home towards Aston at around 1pm. Wardle and his wife had been driving back from Rotherham Hospital in the same direction when the motorist struck the cyclist from behind having failed to spot him in the road.
Last week he appeared before Sheffield Magistrates' Court, having pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving, where he was sentenced to five months in prison suspended for 18 months and given a five-year driving ban. Wardle was also ordered to pay £2,000 and will have to take an extended driving test following his disqualification, if he wishes to drive again.
In a statement, Mr Straw's family said he was "a much-loved husband, father, son, brother and friend to many, tragically taken in avoidable circumstances whilst out on a bike ride, something he really enjoyed doing and was highly proficient at".
Serious Collisions Sergeant John Taylor added: "My thoughts are today with Glyn's family who are continuing to grieve their loss. Cyclists are one of the most vulnerable road users, and this case demonstrates how we must all take responsibility to create safer roads.
"Glyn was a keen cyclist; it was his hobby and passion. He knew how to stay safe and rode in a sensible manner, he may still be alive today if Wardle had made different decisions."
Wardle was sentenced in Sheffield on the same day that another motorist, Gillian Dungworth, also received a suspended prison sentence and a five-year driving ban. Dungworth hit and killed cyclist Adrian Lane at a notoriously dangerous junction where safe cycling campaigners later held a 'die-in' protest, the judge describing her actions as "a few seconds of bad, bad driving" before sentencing her to a suspended sentence.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- The_Ewan 0 sec ago
I'd love to know which actually existing UCI rule says "And no pointy bits on your glasses, neither" because it does sound a lot like they just...
- john_smith 3 min 20 sec ago
Not sure what your problem is or why you find it necessary to be so rude. Are you ill?
- Blackthorne 25 min 20 sec ago
Cutting notches out of existing rubber is expensive work you know
- mattw 32 min 34 sec ago
That's a great idea. Thanks.
- wtjs 32 min 55 sec ago
BBC article with more details (car was black)......
- chrisonabike 1 hour 42 min ago
Good - but don't forget the several hundred other cyclists travelling each hour, adapted cycles etc. How about "we've taken 1.5m each side for...
- Secret_squirrel 2 hours 26 min ago
About the handlebar. It looks like there is plenty of space either side of the stem to for a GPS mount?...
- David9694 2 hours 27 min ago
He sliced through the front of the house, including through the bus stop. Could have been a lot worse. ...
Add new comment
25 comments
DVLA allows you to drive even if you have lost vision in one eye, as long as you have good vision in the remaining eye. You don't even need to notify them as I found out when I had detached retina's. It was only when cataracts made driving difficult that I had to notify them. It took a while after surgery to get my licence back.
It's too easy for drivers with medical conditions to continue driving. All drivers should be subject to retests and vision checks periodically
Yes I'm sure the driver's eyesight will have cleared up in five years..
I am not excusing what happened in any way here but this is a salutory lesson for anyone who has never had eye problems. It really is not as easy to detect you have a problem as you may think.
I have had three issues with my eyes. The first when I was fourteen. I slowly could not read the chalkboard at the front of the class. It never occurred to me that my eyesight was at fault until the teacher pointed it out. By this time it would have been probably a year in decline.
Then at 51 I developed glaucoma and lost a bit of vision in my right eye. I only noticed it because i shut one eye and the very top of the signpost i was looking at disappeared. The optician explained that i had low pressure glaucoma. Had it operated on. It was only by chance that I noticed it.
Then at 52 I developed cataracts the optician said they were fine but I knew they were not. A tail-light became a circle of lights (not glare) making it hard to discern exactly where a vehicle was on the road at night.
Out of three eye issues the only one I recognised as a problem without a bit of luck or outside intervention was the cataracts. By then I was probably hyper sensitive to it by then.
But I come from a family which has a hereditary defect that means we can go blind, get glaucoma, have bad arthritis. So you would have thought we would be more conscious of things going wrong, but because it happens slowly and your brain cleans up the image for you, you really only notice when it is quite bad.
Which is exactly why we have a joined up system with periodic reviews of drivers' health and abilities...
(I understand this is actually tricky because "perverse incentives" eg. we don't want people to avoid doctors for fear of those reporting on on any condition which could affect the patient's driving abilities. But currently the system's exactly as effective as the box you tick on a visa saying "I am not a terrorist, international criminal etc." - or maybe less? )
Remember the optician said my cataracts were fine to drive with but they were n't and I spotted the glaucoma by accident so actually no this joined up system would not have worked. I am not old enough to have to renew my licence with declarations it is only because I declared the Glaucoma (so I do now) and that is my point. It is not something you can be complacent about. The system will not always catch the people with a problem, as individuals you have to be aware of your eyesight and general health and it is not easy because gradual deterioration means you are often unaware it is happening. Even if you think you are perfect it is worth having an annual sight test and checking and even give yourself basic sight tests such as read a number plate with each eye individually once a month at a set distance. Even then if the professional says you are fine to drive you may not be because sometimes what should be technically fine is still dangerous in your particular case.
I should have tagged the sarcasm in my response - I don't think we have a very joined up system in the UK! It is left to drivers' own initiative and conscienciousness to check they are fit to drive and only do so when they should.
Perhaps one could argue that if this had no impact except on the drivers themselves but this isn't the case.
We do have some existing alternative models eg. HGV medical form process though I'm not familiar with these. And yes, it's the case that "but some people will just ignore it" eg. those who currently make themselves unfit to drive through intoxication. I don't see that as a good excuse for "give up" though..
Not an "easy fix" but given the current system is "no checks until someone is killed" I feel there may be room for small improvements...
But the driver was 83 and was confirming that he able to see ok. I find it very hard to believe that he was getting regular eye tests but it happened very quickly.
Perhaps he couldn't read the form properly...?
He probably believed he could see OK, not everyone gets regular eye tests, people simply believe they can still see fine because they always have and the number of times they need good acuity at more than 10-20 yards is rare so they do not realise they have a problem.
I would not be surprised if about 5-10% of drivers driving today would fail or be a very marginal pass on the number plate test.
But there is no excuse for not having a free eye test.
Does everyone realise that they can? I wonder how many actually take advantage of these tests.
... and not a few on other parts too. But we don't ever recheck (unless someone manages the feat of getting themselves sentenced to a driving ban); yet "war on the motorist".
My eye sight has deteriorated, do I
a) own up and hand in my licence and lose the ability to drive but stay out of prison
or
b) carry on driving and kill someone and still stay out of prison
No brainer really, especially if it's only a cyclist.
Or (c) administer my own eye test by driving to Barnard Castle? (Cos *that* part was apparently fine, it was the lockdown- breaking bit which was held to be out of order).
That "I think we've had enough of experts" Gove thought it was something he would do.
I know this is probably "process" (and hopefully this chap will stop) but seems to illustrate the way the system's set up. Convicted (court finds his degenerative condition has left him incapable of safe driving). Bureacracy says "but feel free to have another go at getting a licence - perhaps you'll get better?"
Wot - no statement from the killer driver's defence or family, on how this has ruined his life, he doesn't know how it happened, he's so distraught, etc etc?
If you are over 60 you can get a free eye test.
I knew you have to reapply for a licence once 70 but I didn't realise you self certify on eyesight. There's a page here on the effects of various eye problems.
https://www.olderdrivers.org.uk/the-law/eyesight/
Is this a joke? What sort of justice is this ?
Couldn't be arsed to see an optician despite being unable to see clearly but this counts as "undiagnosed" rather than negligent.
Why isn't he banned for life ?
Glad I have radar so at least I can tell if a car is slowing and if not, I have a couple of seconds to maybe escape being a KSI.
What sort of justice is this ?
It's the sort of justice cyclists are forced to become more and more accustomed to- it's called 'don't worry too much sir, we know that you're bound to kill the odd one'
Does this surprise you even slightly. What counts as negligent? Using your phone? Not actually paying attention or looking where you are going? Almost every "accident" on our roads is from negligent driving. This is just a reflection of the idea that driving is a god given right and "mistakes happen" when you don't really give a shit about the dangers of driving a 2 tonne lump of steel at speed.
Its not even like this is hard to stop but it would require a political party with at least one ball. Every 2 years once you hit 60 you have to be cleared by your GP to drive from a medical perspective. Every 5 years you have to take a short test to check you have a clue what day of the week it is. It should also be something where any medical issue will trigger more frequent retests or have your license revoked.
Another version of the incompetence paradox. No-one had informed him his sight was worsening. It can hardly be the responsibility of people to check themselves - you'd mostly be wasting your time! (Also - not responsibility of govt. to mandate this, that would be nanny state / infringe freedoms / cost money. )
So back to the "honour system" we go...
Oh, and because isolation / lack of local facilities obvs. older people have to drive...
Since my optician informs me every time I have an eye test that I still meet DVLA requirements (no surprise to me as I can read a number plate at 50 paces), and the recommended frequency for an eye test when a pensioner is yearly and they are free, that must have been a fast degeneration and so clearly recognisable to the gentleman. Either that or he didn't bother taking eye tests as they weren't important or possibly because he knew they would bring bad news. Whatever, the legal system has let us down again.
Just make it strict liability. Being unaware is no defence, you are proved guilty by the fact of your impaired vision. Your responsibility and your liability, to know whether or not you can see.
The principle could be extended to say that the fact of not seeing something manifestly visible itself condemns you. It should not be acceptable that you can kill someone with your car, but escape conviction by simply claiming that you didn't see them despite looking, honest m'lud.
The latter being commonly accepted is exactly what makes me think this is a tough ask just now.