View Full Version : reinforces the need for elderly drivesr to be assessed for fitness to drive.
http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon1.png Caithness woman denies causing cyclist death
Ninety-four-year old is alleged to have driven car dangerously
Accused's counsel has lodged special defence on her behalf
A 94-year-old woman has denied causing the death of a cyclist by driving dangerously, according to the BBC today.
Alice Ross, of Lybster in Caithness, is thought to be the oldest person to have been prosecuted in Scotland. It is alleged she drove onto the wrong side of the A99 Wick to John O'Groats road on 21 September 2011.
Ms Ross is claimed to have mounted a verge, driven along a pavement and hit Elaine Dunne, 30 from Glenfield, Leicester. Mrs Dunne and her husband Christopher, who was severely injured, were on a week-long holiday in Scotland to celebrate their first wedding anniversary.
They had been standing with their bikes at the time of the incident. Ms Ross was excused from attending a brief hearing at the High Court in Edinburgh. Defence QC Ian Duguid said she pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The lawyer also told judge Lord Bannatyne that Ms Ross blamed a medical condition for what happened at Auckengill.
She has a special defence of automatism. The document lodged in court claims she was unconscious at the time.
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.
Mr Duguid said investigations were continuing, involving a consultant neurologist and consultant cardiologist.
He asked for more time to continue preparations before a trial date was fixed.
The case is due back in court next month and Ross has again been excused attendance.
Mr Duguid said: "She is 94 years of age. She lives in Caithness and the difficulties for her in travelling to the court are substantial."
She has a special defence of automatism. The document lodged in court claims she was unconscious at the time.
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 true then she would have passed the assessment as it was "Unforeseeable"
pirateeye
06-Mar-13, 21:41
I agree people shouldn't be allowed to drive if they are not fit to do so but this accident wasn't due to the poor lady being an unfit road user. It was just one of those things that happened and unfortunately did massive damage. Accidents happen, fact of life...
I think ALL drivers should have an annual health check for their fitness to drive.
systems should be in place so this should not happen, every few years you have to be assessed to keep a gun licence, every few years you have to be assessed to keep a HGV licence, every few years you have to be assessed to keep your forklift licence. a plant operators licence, and many more, all of which are lethal weapons. a car is a lethal weapon to. its a sad fact of life I'm afraid, but we should be reassessed as the years catch up on us. I for one would welcome a strict assessment test, and sadly hand my licence over if found unfit or incapable of being a safe person, I would not like to be this poor woman living with the fact that she is responsible for the death of another person, My heart goes out to the family who have suffered this loss. so perhaps dew to the amount of traffic and the performance of a standard car these days, its time to be medically and competently tested at a given age and assessed regularly there after.
I think ALL drivers should have an annual health check for their fitness to drive.
I think there should be a full health check before you are able to apply for your licence, that would weed out a lot of people that are unfit to drive.
I think there should be a full health check before you are able to apply for your licence, that would weed out a lot of people that are unfit to drive.
i fully agree there . at least for the over 65 s
i fully agree there . at least for the over 65 s
why single out over 65's, I would start with the teen's then every 5 years a compulsory medical and eye test for all, to be paid for at their own expense
Regurgitating bits from another recent thread, and a long standing opinion of mine, (ditto some of the above):
Regular retesting of drivers.
Regular medical, inc' vision.
RagnarRocks
06-Mar-13, 23:41
Once you start health checks for people's physical suitability to drive it wouldn't be long before you start doing assessments on whether they are mentally competent and that unleashes a genie out of the bottle ! There's a difference between city and large town dwellers who have suitable public transport alternatives to rural dwellers who are effectively isolated without a car. I mean I'd rather be sat behind someone driving slowly because they aren't as fast as they used to be than someone who is in a rush and wants to drive like its an F1 track. I haven't checked the statistics on road fatalities but I'd wager speed and reckless driving kills more than elderly infirm drivers and a physical health check will never show whether you're a reckless inconsiderate driver.
She has a special defence of automatism. The document lodged in court claims she was unconscious at the time.
A medical condition, which was not self-induced and not foreseeable, caused a fall in blood pressure which led to a "profound faint", t
OK not self induced and not foreseeable but they would have known there was a very high probability that this would happen sometime as I doubt that this was the very first time that this automatism has happened. Perhaps not while driving but in other situations. So, reading their legal spin they knew there was a possibility that this could happen but did not do the correct thing. That was to stop this lady from driving.
........I haven't checked the statistics on road fatalities but I'd wager speed and reckless driving kills more than elderly infirm drivers and a physical health check will never show whether you're a reckless inconsiderate driver.
Without going on a 'speed' tangent it needs to be separated from reckless & dangerous. Somewhere on here there are some figures for age v driver incidents, and it actually puts elderly male drivers in a high risk category for causing road collisions (sorry, can't remember figures).
And you're right, a medical will not foresee reckless driving, but a regular retest will!
Aaldtimer
07-Mar-13, 04:11
Rumour had it at the time that she swerved to avoid a cat crossing the road! Mibbes aye, mibbes no?
Once you start health checks for people's physical suitability to drive it wouldn't be long before you start doing assessments on whether they are mentally competent and that unleashes a genie out of the bottle !
Oh, Oh. and social suitability, If you're not the right sort of chap or have an offensive car. It's on the bus for you matey :lol:
RagnarRocks
07-Mar-13, 09:35
Oh, Oh. and social suitability, If you're not the right sort of chap or have an offensive car. It's on the bus for you matey :lol:Reality is society is already heading down that road look at the way you're treated by local councils, health workers,social workers they are being forced to work in systems which discriminate in a way they never would when I was growing up! If you're a smoker obese etc etc
Reality is society is already heading down that road look at the way you're treated by local councils, health workers,social workers they are being forced to work in systems which discriminate in a way they never would when I was growing up! If you're a smoker obese etc etc
Bring it on! One has one's standards to maintain. :eek:
RagnarRocks
07-Mar-13, 09:42
Is that the royal one or the hyacinth bouquet one ? And whose standards are you upholding mine are intolerably high on some issues and woefully low on others
Alice in Blunderland
07-Mar-13, 12:19
I was under the impression that over a certain age and you had to have your health checked to renew your licence :confused
For the case of health checks how often should the health checks take place. I would say its like an MOT for a car. On the day of the check everything's ok certificate issued a little while later and it might not be the same story.
I thought for any condition like that the doctor let DVLA know and your license was taken away until such time as you are deemed fit? I know my Dads was when he started taking dizzy turns,mine was taken away after my brain trauma and only given back when I was deemed fit to drive x
Humerous Vegetable
07-Mar-13, 14:20
I think you'll find that all drivers over 70 are supposed to renew their license every 3 years and that medical conditions affecting driving ability are supposed to be reported to the DVLA by the driver and his/her GP.
Some GPs are notoriously lax at this kind of thing, and I remember a patient (from another part of the country) who was a type 1 diabetic who'd had a stroke and could hardly see a couple of inches in front of his face, who continued to drive until he ran into the back of a very expensive sports car. Fortunately it was his own GP's car, much to the joy of the rest of us, who had spent hours warning him about his patient.
...it wouldn't be long before you start doing assessments on whether they are mentally competent...
That might not be such a bad idea: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/05/woman-dies-barnet-road-rage
I haven't checked the statistics on road fatalities but I'd wager speed and reckless driving kills more than elderly infirm drivers and a physical health check will never show whether you're a reckless inconsiderate driver.
According to the RAC Foundation young drivers between ages 15 - 24 are more likely to die on the roads than from any other cause: http://www.pacts.org.uk/statistics.php?id=55
And according to Brake, young drivers aged 17 - 20 have more road traffic incidents than any other age group: http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/young-drivers-the-hard-facts.htm
Thumper is right DVLA have to be notified of ALL medical conditions by the doctor and the individual,bet niether did tho and it cost an innocent persons life.
given this lady s age and the fact that driving tests wern,t introduced untill 1934, she may not even have passed a driving test , let alone read a copy of a highway code .
the test in those day s would have been a very basic one indeed . something like driving forward 30 ft stopping and reversing 5 ft id imagine. . but she certainly would have gained experience ,im sure. . but reading the story i have strong doubts if she should have been driving at all . she is after all a very senior person and as the years roll on we do lose some of our ability to react as fast as younger driver s, i would also imagine her highway code skills would be very vague as even i have to swot up on all the new signs road layouts etc etc . and given her age / health . well need i say more. as for lawyers saying she could not help or forsee what happened , well that s what they do to help their clients , they are experts at twisting things . personally i think this lady should just admit she messed up .throw herself open to the mercy of the court and burn her driving licence ........i doubt if any one would take to the wheel again after causing that terrible accident,.a young woman died needlessly a husband was injured and made a widower , the grief go s on and on
Humerous Vegetable
07-Mar-13, 19:11
Do you think there should be some way of naming and shaming those GPs who are responsibile for not reporting people who are no longer safe to be amongst us on our roads? They get paid for this.
Some of them appear to be scooping up large amounts of public finance for doing as little as possible to fulfil their public duties. They always seem to escape any kind of offical censure.
Alice in Blunderland
07-Mar-13, 23:07
Do you think there should be some way of naming and shaming those GPs who are responsibile for not reporting people who are no longer safe to be amongst us on our roads? They get paid for this.
Some of them appear to be scooping up large amounts of public finance for doing as little as possible to fulfil their public duties. They always seem to escape any kind of offical censure.
Oh really !!
I'm not sure about this requirement for doctors etc. There is a long list of notifiable medical conditions on the DVLA website which it seems most people, including medical professionals, are either not aware of or ignore because they can't face giving up their cars. A few years ago I had cataracts and everyone I saw, having done an eye test, said I was still OK to drive - doctor, optician, hospital consultant. Just to prove the point because I was pretty sure I couldn't do the reading number plate test I asked the police to test me and I failed. I surrendered my licence until after the op. but had no test before getting it back. We all know many people who should not be driving for various medical reasons but their doctors etc. don't tell them, nor do they inform the DVLA. Are there rules which are routinely ignored ? Or is there nothing except a reality check by the driver.
most important thing being, that if you have a certain medical condition that can impair your driving ability ,and you know it ,and do not inform the dvla, , then something happens , an accident you cause etc , the insurance company will not pay out . and that would make a huge difference especialy to third parties .
beetlecrusher
08-Mar-13, 18:36
I have to agree with Alice - medical checks, like MOTs, are only ever as good as the day they are done.
I have to agree with Alice - medical checks, like MOTs, are only ever as good as the day they are done.
My point is that if the medical expert tells someone they are fit to drive when they are not - what then? jacko is right - if you drive with a notifiable condition not only will the insurance company not pay out but you are driving illegally because not insured. There seems to be general, sometimes wilful, ignorance about all this.
Alice in Blunderland
08-Mar-13, 19:01
Guidance given by GMC for doctors.
1 There is a clear public good in having a confidential
medical service. The fact that people are
encouraged to seek advice and treatment,
including for communicable diseases, benefits
society as a whole as well as the individual.
Confidential medical care is recognised in law as
being in the public interest. However, there can
also be a public interest in disclosing information:
to protect individuals or society from risks of
serious harm, such as serious communicable
diseases or serious crime; or to enable medical
research, education or other secondary uses of
information that will benefit society over time.
Personal information may, therefore, be disclosed
in the public interest, without patients’ consent,
and in exceptional cases where patients have
withheld consent, if the benefits to an individual or
to society of the disclosure outweigh both the
public and the patient’s interest in keeping the
information confidential. You must weigh the
harms that are likely to arise from non-disclosure
of information against the possible harm, both to
the patient and to the overall trust between
doctors and patients, arising from the release of
that information.
Disclosure of personal information about a patient
without consent may be justified in the public
interest if failure to disclose may expose others to
a risk of death or serious harm. You should still seek
the patient’s consent to disclosure if practicable
and consider any reasons given for refusal.
2 The Driver and Vehicle and Licensing Agency (DVLA)
and Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) are legally
responsible for deciding if a person is medically unfit to
drive. This means they need to know if a driving licence
holder has a condition or is undergoing treatment that
may now, or in the future, affect their safety as a driver.
3 You should seek the advice of an experienced colleague
or the DVLA or DVA’s medical adviser if you are not
sure whether a patient may be unfit to drive. You
should keep under review any decision that they are fit,
particularly if the patient’s condition or treatments
change. The DVLA’s publication For Medical Practitioners
– At a glance Guide to the current Medical Standards of
Fitness to Drive includes information about a variety of
disorders and conditions that can impair a patient’s
fitness to drive.
4 The driver is legally responsible for informing the DVLA
or DVA about such a condition or treatment. However,
if a patient has such a condition, you should explain to
the patient:
(a) that the condition may affect their ability to drive
(if the patient is incapable of understanding this
advice, for example, because of dementia, you
should inform the DVLA or DVA immediately), and
(b) that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA or
DVA about the condition.
5 If a patient refuses to accept the diagnosis, or the effect
of the condition on their ability to drive, you can
suggest that they seek a second opinion, and help
arrange for them to do so. You should advise the
patient not to drive in the meantime.
6 If a patient continues to drive when they may not be fit
to do so, you should make every reasonable effort to
persuade them to stop. As long as the patient agrees,
you may discuss your concerns with their relatives,
friends or carers.September 2009
Confidentiality: reporting concerns about patients to the DVLA or the DVA
7 If you do not manage to persuade the patient to stop
driving, or you discover that they are continuing to
drive against your advice, you should contact the DVLA
or DVA immediately and disclose any relevant medical
information, in confidence, to the medical adviser.
8 Before contacting the DVLA or DVA you should try to
inform the patient of your decision to disclose personal
information. You should then also inform the patient in
writing once you have done so.
thank you Alice,
this is the part were all debating ..
4 The driver is legally responsible for informing the DVLA
or DVA about such a condition or treatment. However,
if a patient has such a condition, you should explain to
the patient:
(a) that the condition may affect their ability to drive
(if the patient is incapable of understanding this
advice, for example, because of dementia, you
should inform the DVLA or DVA immediately), and
(b) that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA or
DVA about the condition.
Alice in Blunderland
09-Mar-13, 10:16
thank you Alice,
this is the part were all debating ..
4 The driver is legally responsible for informing the DVLA
or DVA about such a condition or treatment. However,
if a patient has such a condition, you should explain to
the patient:
(a) that the condition may affect their ability to drive
(if the patient is incapable of understanding this
advice, for example, because of dementia, you
should inform the DVLA or DVA immediately), and
(b) that they have a legal duty to inform the DVLA or
DVA about the condition.
Yes however what if the GP has explained to the patience that they consider they should not be driving , the patient takes it on board and leaves the room. The GPs first port of call is the patient not necessarily the DVLA or the DVA. If the patient makes all the right noises leaves the room how is the GP going to know if they inform the DVLA or continue to drive. Its a fine line they have to tread when effectively breaching confidentiality. The example given was dementia but what level of dementia should you act upon initial stages or further down the road when the illness starts to kick in. Its easy to be an armchair medic and critic when we do not have the full facts and legalities to hand. The same goes for medications prescribed. How many people actually refrain from driving when they see the warning do not operate machinery whilst taking these tablets.
Lots of strong painkillers affect our driving ability yet many people still continue to drive.......whilst impaired. Its a minefield. :)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.