A 77-year-old driver who left a cyclist in a medically induced coma after colliding with him on the A82 has been banned from driving for three years and told he is unlikely to return to the road.
At Dumbarton Sheriff Court, Harold Rattray, of Clyde View Court, Bowling, pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention and causing serious injury, the Glasgow Times reports. A separate charge relating to eyesight was not pursued by the Crown.
The court heard the cyclist, 65, was riding on the A82 near the Renton bypass at around 11:40 am on January 11, 2024. He was travelling in lane one of the dual carriageway, wearing dark clothing and using a flashing rear red light.
Fiscal depute Mandy Robertson told the court that another motorist had spotted the cyclist when doing around a bend, moving into the second lane to give him space. As he moved back into lane one, the driver looked in his rear-view mirror and saw that a dark coloured car had collided with the cyclist from behind.
The impact threw the rider into the air and onto the centre of the road. A passenger in Rattray’s car later stated that the driver had failed to observe the cyclist.
The cyclist was placed in a medically induced coma and taken to the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow.
He spent 15 days in hospital with multiple serious injuries, including fractures to his pelvis and spine, three broken ribs, head injuries, and a haematoma near his bladder. Surgeons fitted metal plates to his hip socket, and he later required a full hip replacement. Doctors have confirmed the cyclist will be left with permanent scarring, including six small scars to his right leg and a surgical scar on his left hip.
Although he is now up to walking three miles a day and undertaking physiotherapy, he continues to suffer dizziness and imbalance, particularly when turning his head or changing direction suddenly.
Defence solicitor Judith Reid said her client had not driven since the collision and cited low sun as a factor, stating that the driver “accepts he didn’t see the cyclist.” She told the court that the case had taken more than a year to reach indictment and that Rattray’s insurance had compensated the victim in full.
Sheriff Maxwell Hendry rejected any suggestion that sun glare reduced the driver’s responsibility, saying, “I know the road very, very well. Low sun means a driver has to take additional care.” He added that the other motorist had seen the cyclist and took evasive action.
The defence told the court that this had “hung over” the driver for a long time. She said: “This is a man who gave himself a considerable fright and dealt entirely appropriately with this since.
The sheriff added, “It’s an example of how a moment of carelessness can change lives. [The cyclist’s] life was changed, and your life was changed.”
On February 11, Rattray was disqualified from driving for three years and fined £650, with a £40 victim surcharge. Although the court heard he intended to try to regain his licence again in the future, the sheriff told him, “Effectively, you will not drive again.”
14 thoughts on ““A moment of carelessness can change lives”: driver told he will ‘effectively not drive again’ after collision left cyclist in medically induced coma”
He’s 77 and DQ’d for three years, what’s this nonsense about “effectively you will never drive again”? He says he intends to regain his licence; provided he can afford the insurance and is capable of passing the driving test he might drive for another twenty years. Sounds as though the Sheriff knows full well how inadequate the sanction is and is salving his conscience by pretending the driver won’t go back on the roads even when he must know full well there’s every chance that he will.
I agree with everything you say Rendel except he will face insurance premiums out of reach to the vast majority of people , assuming he can find a company willing to quote.
The Sheriff knows this and is therefore able to pass a sentence that won’t be appealed. There is method in his madness.
Had a quick look round, according to comparison sites most insurers will offer quotes for a CD33 conviction (serious injury by careless driving), with premiums typically 2-4 times what a clean driver of the same profile could expect. If he comes back driving a small car, asks for TPO insurance and accepts a high excess then no reason, assuming he’s reasonably affluent, that he couldn’t get back on the road. From some of the information online it seems that insurance companies tend to regard careless driving offences as “could happen to anyone”; it’s only when you get into the dangerous driving offences and/or driving impaired through drink or drugs that premiums really skyrocket.
As far as I can tell, for this offence the sheriff would have the discretion to require an extended retest before the driver’s license is re-instated. Although the report doesn’t mention it, if the extended re-test is required (including an eyesight test, as per all driving tests) then that might make it unlikely the driver will ever drive again (assuming the driver is expected to fail).
If the sheriff did not order an extended re-test, despite having the power to do so, and given the comments made by the sheriff, then that would seem… odd.
There are many thousands (millions?) of people out there driving who are manifestly incompetent but who managed to focus long enough to pass a driving test; this driver, as far as one can tell, hit the cyclist because they weren’t paying proper attention to the road ahead, something that they would be doing on an extended retest. Unless there are other elements of incompetence not mentioned here present then there’s no reason to suppose the driver wouldn’t be able to get their licence back on a retest. That, above all else, is the reason we need more severe penalties such as lifetime bans, if drivers knew that their episodes of “momentary inattention” would mean a lifetime ban they might actually take a bit more care.
Just another extraordinarily bad piece of road infrastructure built with tonnes of space for active travel, but no protection at all.
The good
Only careless not dangerous! Eyesight?
Need to be able to edit!!!!! Sorry about the quote things. 🙁
“On February 11, Rattray was disqualified from driving for three years and fined £650, with a £40 victim surcharge. Although the court heard he intended to try to regain his licence again in the future, the sheriff told him, “Effectively, you will not drive again.” ”
He’s 77. He intends to try to regain his licence when he’s 80. The “Effectively, you will not drive again” is nonsense. He’s paid a fine of less than £700 and stopped driving for a few years.
“The defence … said: “This is a man who gave himself a considerable fright and dealt entirely appropriately with this since.”
Appart from trying to blame the collision on low sun and insisting he plans drive again, obviously.
“Defence solicitor Judith Reid said … that Rattray’s insurance had compensated the victim in full.”
There’s no need to punish my client because his victim has been paid off.
and was the driver’s eyesight tested at the scene? Have they been to the opticians since?
Why no mandatory retest?
‘and cited low sun as a factor . . . . ‘
Years and years ago, when I was in my 20s, I was hurtling around north London in my little VW Polo sport when a copper stepped out into the street, extended his arm and ordered me to stop. I nearly didn’t see him because of the low sun but managed to stop, just in time. I was a bit shocked as I saw him at the last moment. I’m really sorry, I said to the copper, but I didn’t see you because of the low sun. ‘Then you shouldn’t be driving so fast if you can’t see’. He replied. I’ve never forgotten that. Since that day, whenever there is low sun I drive like a snail; slow, steady and carefully. The copper didn’t charge me or take my details – he just educated me – at personal risk too.
Whilst I do hope the driver is never able to get behind the wheel again it would be quite something to prevent them ever being a passenger in a vehicle…
“….unlikely to return to the road.”
Never mind a vehicle – they won’t be able to walk down it either.