Forum menu
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-21686286 ]null[/url]
Interesting to see how this one goes.
She has a special defence of automatism. The document lodged in court claims she was unconscious at the time.
😯
😯 😯
why put the victims family though this? She's never going to drive again, won't get a custodial sentence or community service, just a fine which sellign her car would probably pay.
94 year old, driving, kills 2. But could get off because she passed out. Wow.
How are they "cyclists" if they weren't cycling at the time?
It all hinges on whether she had this condition diagnosed before the accident..... and if she did was she told to stop driving?
If she wasn't told to stop driving then I think that defence will stand!
However I can't see why you wouldn't stop her from driving - fainting can lead to lack of control of the car FFS 👿
A medical condition, which was not self-induced and not foreseeable, caused a fall in blood pressure which led to a "profound faint", the document said.
If that is the case then it seems to be a tragic accident.
Irrelevant that they were 'cyclists'. They weren't riding their bikes and were not in the road.
There should be annual driving tests beyond 70. My fathers just been stopped from driving and it should have happened long before but there's no process.
It all hinges on whether she had this condition diagnosed before the accident..... and if she did was she told to stop driving?If she wasn't told to stop driving then I think that defence will stand!
+1
my brother in law (28) has epilepsy and has to go a year without a seizure before he can think about driving again. He's been without a license for years, because of above.
my brother in law (28) has epilepsy and has to go a year without a seizure before he can think about driving again. He's been without a license for years, because of above.
My bothers mildly epileptic but the drugs keep it under controll, the ammount of form filling back and forth was incredible considering our nan can still technicaly drive (although she doesn't).
[i]Irrelevant that they were 'cyclists'. They weren't riding their bikes and were not in the road.[/i]
Exactly. It's like oh, they were [i]cyclists[/i] so they're asking for trouble!
Interesting, she's happy to drive along the A99 killing people, but getting to court is too difficult....
my brother in law (28) has epilepsy and has to go a year without a seizure before he can think about driving again. He's been without a license for years, because of above.
I have a relative that suffers binge drinking induced epilepsy. The relative was banned from driving after having two RTAs whilst under the influence. The relative's ban is over soon, and as the relative refuses to engage with their Dr, no-one is aware of (or even it seems, mildy interested in) her continuing binge drinking and subsequent fits. I'm writing to the Police/DVLA/her Doctor, but if past performance is indicative of future trends, they'll refuse to act, quoting some policy that they themselves created (and so can of course change at any time if they had the will and intelligence to do so). It's a good life.