[Closed] driver who caused eilidh cairns death actually going to jail

What depressing reading.

That's appalling. At least appropriate action has been taken now, not that it helps.

You would think that if a fatality has happened then surely a full medical (at least eye test) to check suitability to drive should be mandatory. I mean he would have had a breath test why not eyesight test.

You would think that if a fatality has happened then surely a full medical (at least eye test) to check suitability to drive should be mandatory. I mean he would have had a breath test why not eyesight test

Indeed. But we all drive without a medical. I shared digs with a girl whos parents were seriously injusred after an oncoming driver had a heat attack. He had a history of heart problems.

police only did an eyesight test after the family pushed for it.

admittedly he had corrective glasses but the idiot has driven atleast twice without them with terrible consequences. having an annual medical is certainly a step in the rigfht direction but not sure how you'd admin/enorce it and what do you do about these cases where glasses are needed but the driver loses/forgets/can't be arsed with them?

Edit. possible driving/licence improvements aside the police/cps handling of eilidhs case sounds pretty shoddy

Other countries do regular eye tests for drivers. Admittedly, this includes the states who are terrible drivers IME but the whole pass and you're good till you're 70 thing in this country is an absolute joke. People's physical condition changes, they pick up bad habits, they forget how to drive properly, the traffic changes....

My Honda Accord would have been a fanny magnet in the 50's due to its futuristic styling and massive power output and yet someone who passed their test then would be allowed to drive it now.

(Obviously Honda Accords are still fanny magnets)

Even some mandatory hazard awareness courses would be a good idea.

making every driver ride a bike through rush hour four times a year might help us out just as much

making every driver ride a bike through rush hour four times a year might help us out just as much

(and scrap the nebulous "sun in my eyes" defence)

Every time I read one of these cases, there does seem to be an assumption by the police that the cyclist was contributory to their own death. Just make the police get out on bikes sometimes, and realise how under attack we can be as cyclists on the road. Maybe then the laws would be applied a little differently.

Put the driver to hard labour and let him rot in jail ...

admittedly he had corrective glasses but the idiot has driven atleast twice without them with terrible consequences. having an annual medical is certainly a step in the rigfht direction but not sure how you'd admin/enorce it

assumption by the police that the cyclist was contributory to their own death

making every driver ride a bike through rush hour four times a year might help us out just as much

A relative over the age of 70 living in Switzerland has to have a medical, which includes an eye test. She was banned from driving until cataracts were removed and the all clear given, and driving licence returned.
However in this country the over 70's fill in their own questionaire to carry on driving and I know for a fact that many lie about eye sight.

Good news (well not "good" but you know what I mean).

I was sat next to Kate Cairns and her mother at a recent meeting of the [url= http://newcycling.org/ ]Newcastle Cycle Campaign[/url]. They spoke with passion and barely concealed fury about what happen to Eilidh and the subsequent "investigation".

I'm glad [i]some[/i] justice has been done - just a crying shame that someone else had to die first!

Every time I read one of these cases, there does seem to be an assumption by the police that the cyclist was contributory to their own death

I've said it before but when there is an endemic assumption or prejudice within society that chance of achieve justice is nigh on zero.

Even if the police do a proper investigation you then have to battle against the judge / magistrate and the jury.

What a tragedy for Nora Gutmann and her family and friends. 97 years through, and having an end like that.
How many times do incidents like this have to happen before something changes?
Are the CPS, Police and anyone else involved in the first case prosecutable for contributory negligence which should have had the driver prevented from driving again?

Makes me very sad... I hope no-one I know ever goes like that...

who votes, Drivers
who make the laws, Drivers
who are the jurors, Drivers

There by the grace of god go i

Problem is how to get turkeys to vote for christmas, even if in this case reform would be a good thing for all. After all what are all drivers not in a car, pedestrians. Remove cars from towns and see air quality and road safety improve, but we all know it is others who need t stop driving, it is others who are bad drivers.

The above reminds me of a patient at our opticians

1 He is below the driving standard with uncorrected vision
2 He flat out refuses to buy/wear spectacles
3 I see him every day driving a post office van
4 because of the above the van insurance is invalid
5 I have told the person all of this

and the killer

6 If I reported it to his employers he could sue my under the data protection act

Great this countries beaurocracy eh?

Can some else raise the issue with the employer? Comment on how they seem to have difficulty reading address of the post but are driving without glasses.

Don't you actually have a duty to report it to the DVLA? I don't think that data protection act counts when reporting illegal activities

put it like this a colleague who owns another practice is being sued for talking to a wife about a husbands sight/glasses, so an employer is a real nono

Reporting it to the proper authorities is a very different matter though.

I was astonished to read the hustler's post, but:

The only exception which would allow you to override your duty of confidentiality and report a patient to the DVLA without the patient’s explicit permission is where it would be in the overriding public interest for you to do so. In assessing whether there is a sufficient public interest to justify disclosure it must be borne in mind that there is an important public interest in maintaining professional confidences. You may think that it would be in the public interest to report any person to the DVLA who is driving when they should probably not be doing so because they have very poor eyesight. Unfortunately the authorities do not set out the circumstances which would constitute being in the public interest. A view has therefore been taken that the normal course of driving, e.g. driving a car, would not constitute sufficient public interest to report a patient with poor eyesight to the DVLA without the patient’s explicit permission to do so. According to the common law, the test of overriding public interest is a substantial hurdle which must be overcome before disclosure is made. It should not be equated merely with a need to show good reason for the disclosure of confidential information.

[url= http://www.aop.org.uk/legal-services/faqs/ ]here[/url]

I would like to see a decent legal opinion of that, opticians aren't doctors, they are specialist retailers.

actually an optician is a medical professional able to prescribe certain medications etc, unfortunately by industry mismanagemet it is percieved as retail but is acrually medical

Indeed. But we all drive without a medical. I shared digs with a girl whos parents were seriously injusred after an oncoming driver had a heat attack. He had a history of heart problems.

There is a specific offence in the RTA of driving with uncorrected defective eyesight, which would cover this scenario. Therefore the hustler could legitimately disclose what he knows using the DPA exemptions for the detection and prevention of crime.

My photo licence renewal form came through yesterday. 20quid but why couldnt it include a compulsory eye test.

Can we start a campaign.

I was astonished to read the hustler's post, but:

That quote does go on to say that if the driver is driving a bus/HGV/tanker then it [i]would probably constitute being in the overriding public interest[/i] to report them to the DVLA. Not terribly reassuring.

It is bad enough when there is a clear cut unchanging risk e.g. epilepsy or permanent visual damage. Much more difficult if it is a question of whether someone is weearing their glasses - although in this case I assume that the driver had poor vision and didn't have any glasses hence the successful prosecution at a later date.

I must admit that my approach is to make it clear to the patient that I am advising not to drive and to contact the DVLA, that should they not take my advice and have an accident then when a medical report is requested and the truth emerges it is likely that their insurancve company will refuse to pay up and they will suffer the financial consequences. Not much help if they believe [i]it will never happen to me[/i] or alternatively are the sort of driver who sees a licence or insurance as an optional extra.

This Press Release from Kate Cairns is worth a read and a ponder:

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/press-release-from-kate-cairns.html

I mean he would have had a breath test why not eyesight test.

Why do the Police not do it?

A view has therefore been taken that the normal course of driving, e.g. driving a car, would not constitute sufficient public interest to report a patient with poor eyesight to the DVLA

The more I learn about the dominancy of cars/driving in our society the more pissed off and scared I become.

Several years ago the police were setting up eye testing areas on a busy road in Stockport. Motorists were pulled up in rush hour.
The findings were scary - almost 40% were in need of glasses and driving with bad eyesight under the safe guidelines.

I think many older drivers are in self denial when it comes to their eyesight.

I think many [s]older[/s] drivers are in self denial [s]when it comes to their eyesight[/s]