Elderly drivers, a worrying example.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:22:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

mileburner wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...

OK, so he wasn't hanged, drawn and quartered and didn't have his property
forfeit to the Crown (which will no doubt mightily displease spindrift,
mileburner and Phil W Lee), but he's still going to find a licence a bit
hard to get.

Gee! Thanks for the mention.

If you want my take on it, the guy should not have been on the road in the
first place. If we had to annually renew our licences...

Drivers over 70 *do* have to do that, AFAIAA.

You have to renew only avery three years.

Dave Larrington wrote:
In ,
Mr. Benn %%@%%.% tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Please bear in mind that some drivers drive a bus full of passengers
and they will also be slowed down.

Until the bus stops. Whereupon the cyclist will overtake and vanish
into the middle distance. Even at one in the morning a cyclist is
quite capable of vanquishing a bus over an eight mile commute.

I find it rather tedious that if I am cycling and maintaining a steady 20
mph, I will be overtaken by drivers who want to drive faster but then are
forced to slow down again by traffic situations ahead (which they were too
stupid to anticipate). I am then forced to slow down or stop as well. If the
driver had not overtaken everyone could have continued at the "slower"
speed. Worse than that is when they randomly overtake and then stamp on
their brakes.

For most journeys through our town, my 18.5mph average is faster than any
four wheeled vehicle so long as I am able to filter through through the
stationary traffic. It seems bizarre that any driver would therefore want to
overtake me. But they do.

I can help them though, because so long as I ride dead centre of lane they
cannot usually pass and cannot hold me up. As a benefit to them they
actually spend less time in traffic queues improve their mpg, decrease the
pollution *and* have a far less stressed drive.

Ace wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:22:53 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

mileburner wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...

OK, so he wasn't hanged, drawn and quartered and didn't have his property
forfeit to the Crown (which will no doubt mightily displease spindrift,
mileburner and Phil W Lee), but he's still going to find a licence a bit
hard to get.
Gee! Thanks for the mention.

If you want my take on it, the guy should not have been on the road in the
first place. If we had to annually renew our licences...
Drivers over 70 *do* have to do that, AFAIAA.

You have to renew only avery three years.

Amendment accepted.

On 16 July, 22:13, "Mr. Benn" %%@%%.% wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote :





On 16 July, 21:53, "Mr. Benn" %%@%%.% wrote:
spindrift wrote
innews:77582768-8cea-42a8-898c-1de
:

Encouraging cycling reduces casualties.

If enough cyclists use the road at the same time, the level of
congestion will reduce the average speed of drivers which may reduce
the probability of accidents happening. *

If every cyclist who uses the road replaces one driver who uses the
road, then congestion will drop sharply. Of course some of those who
switch to cycling will previously have been using public transport,
which makes more efficient use of road area than bicycles do. But as
ten bicycles can use the amount of road space that one car does, if
only 10% of new cyclists are ex-drivers congestion remains the same,
and if 20% of new cyclists are ex-drivers congestion falls.

Please bear in mind that some drivers drive a bus full of passengers and
they will also be slowed down.

Speeded up, you mean. Less congestion = greater speed.

What part of 'a bike uses less room than a car' do you not understand?

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...
Mr. Benn wrote:

Back in the seventies when I was 8 years old, I remember vividly when
I was stopped by a policeman for cycling the wrong way up a one-way
street. I was terrified of him - I never made the same mistake
again! And of course there was never any mention of prosecution. In
those days, most kids actually respected the police!

Out of interest, how do you think we got from the "kids respecting the
police" situation 40 yrs ago to the present situation?

The seventies were 30 years ago and to answer your question, no idea.

JNugent wrote:
Keitht wrote:
Mr Benn wrote:
"Keitht" KeithT wrote in message
...
Mr Benn wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message
...

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...est.4960582.jp


An elderly man has lost his driving licence after he hit a cyclist
and
drove down the road with him trapped under the car.
More fuel for my idea of compulsory driver re-testing evey x
years. And when I get to be PM, I'll also make cycling tuition and
testing mandatory.
Okey Dokeley -- what age do you suggest cyclists are to be tested?
Where do they cycle until then?

Off-road. Or maybe provisional licences can be granted (don't
laugh!) allowing cycling only on minor roads. Cycling on busy shared
roads these days can be very dangerous and it's not something to be
taken lightly.


Where 'off road' ?
Pavements are all that's left in most places.
What age?
How would 'provisional' work? -- only cycling on 'B' roads?

Under supervision of a qualified licence-holder?

It's hardly unprecedented.

It's hardly workable

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Keitht wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Keitht wrote:
Mr Benn wrote:
"Keitht" KeithT wrote in message
...
Mr Benn wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message
...

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...est.4960582.jp


An elderly man has lost his driving licence after he hit a
cyclist and
drove down the road with him trapped under the car.
More fuel for my idea of compulsory driver re-testing evey x
years. And when I get to be PM, I'll also make cycling tuition
and testing mandatory.
Okey Dokeley -- what age do you suggest cyclists are to be tested?
Where do they cycle until then?

Off-road. Or maybe provisional licences can be granted (don't
laugh!) allowing cycling only on minor roads. Cycling on busy
shared roads these days can be very dangerous and it's not something
to be taken lightly.


Where 'off road' ?
Pavements are all that's left in most places.
What age?
How would 'provisional' work? -- only cycling on 'B' roads?

Under supervision of a qualified licence-holder?

It's hardly unprecedented.

It's hardly workable

That is something that would have to be debated.

On 17 July, 08:24, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 15 July, 14:59, spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:11, spindrift wrote:

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...ght-test.49605....

An elderly man has lost his driving licence after he hit a cyclist
and drove down the road with him trapped under the car.

John Kellett, 82, was driving along Privett Road in Gosport last
December when he ran over David Lewington.
The 48-year-old cyclist, from Gosport, landed on the windscreen of
the Ford Fiesta, shattering it, and then rolled down in front of
the car and became trapped underneath.

Kellett, of Long Drive, Rowner, claimed he did not know he had hit
someone and continued to drive more than 65ft until passersby
managed to stop him.

Fareham Magistrates' Court heard Mr Lewington was cycling along the
road, wearing a high-visibility jacket, when the accident happened
on December 5, at 2pm.

An extract of a statement was then read out in which Mr Lewington
said: 'Next thing I remember, I was under a car.'

Prosecutor Jane Metcalfe explained to the court how witnesses saw
the crash and described seeing Mr Lewington's arm entangled in the
wheel arch and the wheels of the car repeatedly driving over his
head and body.
People shouted at Kellett to stop driving but it was only when a
passerby ran in front of the car and leant on the bonnet that he
finally did so.

As a result of the incident Mr Lewington was left with a cracked
bone in the lower vertebrate, six cracked ribs, severe grazing to
leg and head and is still signed off sick from work.

When police arrived on the scene they asked Kellett to do an eye
test.

Regulations state that a person must be able to read a registration
number on a parked car from 25 meters away.

But he could only do so at 12 meters

A driver doesn't notice a cyclist in broad daylight.

He doesn't notice the bady smashing his windscreen, he carries on
driving.

And he gets his license back in a year!

Typical! The mythical right to drive seems to be regarded as more
important than the right to life itself. What is the betting the
magistrate is a motorist?

Quote:-
"Magistrates banned Kellett from driving for 12 months and ordered him to
pay a £230 fine, £15 victim surcharge and £35 costs. They did not give a
separate penalty for failing the eye sight test.

Chair of the bench Julie Hind said: 'We are very concerned for the safety of
every road user. We understand that you will not be applying for a new
licence in any case.'"

As you say Doug, the right to drive is a myth. Mr Kellet will not be driving
again.

Sorry, where does it say that? It says the magistrate /understands/
that. It doesn't say that DVLA knows anything about it. If he applies
again in a year, he'll (subject to normal checks including eyesight)
get a license, since the magistrate's understanding has no legal
force. If his lawyer was lying on his behalf to the court, or if as a
very elderly man he simply forgets his assurance, in neither case
would it be the first time this has happened.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:57:58 -0500, "Mr. Benn" %%@%%.% wrote:

Back in the seventies when I was 8 years old, I remember vividly when I was
stopped by a policeman for cycling the wrong way up a one-way street. I
was terrified of him - I never made the same mistake again! And of course
there was never any mention of prosecution. In those days, most kids
actually respected the police!

Rubbish. It was little different then from what it is now. 'Good'
kids, who were brung up right, would tend to respect authority, then
and now. If by 'respect' you'll allow a meaning of 'hald a justfieid
fear of'.

All that's changed in the last 30 years is that as we get older we're
more prone to look at the 'bad' kids more than the good ones, running
the risk, as you've done, of extrapolating into the 'things were
better in the old days' line of thinking so prevelant in (us) Grumpy
Old Gits.

Simon Brooke wrote:
On 17 July, 08:24, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 15 July, 14:59, spindrift wrote:
On 15 July, 14:11, spindrift wrote:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/...ght-test.49605....
An elderly man has lost his driving licence after he hit a cyclist
and drove down the road with him trapped under the car.
John Kellett, 82, was driving along Privett Road in Gosport last
December when he ran over David Lewington.
The 48-year-old cyclist, from Gosport, landed on the windscreen of
the Ford Fiesta, shattering it, and then rolled down in front of
the car and became trapped underneath.
Kellett, of Long Drive, Rowner, claimed he did not know he had hit
someone and continued to drive more than 65ft until passersby
managed to stop him.
Fareham Magistrates' Court heard Mr Lewington was cycling along the
road, wearing a high-visibility jacket, when the accident happened
on December 5, at 2pm.
An extract of a statement was then read out in which Mr Lewington
said: 'Next thing I remember, I was under a car.'
Prosecutor Jane Metcalfe explained to the court how witnesses saw
the crash and described seeing Mr Lewington's arm entangled in the
wheel arch and the wheels of the car repeatedly driving over his
head and body.
People shouted at Kellett to stop driving but it was only when a
passerby ran in front of the car and leant on the bonnet that he
finally did so.
As a result of the incident Mr Lewington was left with a cracked
bone in the lower vertebrate, six cracked ribs, severe grazing to
leg and head and is still signed off sick from work.
When police arrived on the scene they asked Kellett to do an eye
test.
Regulations state that a person must be able to read a registration
number on a parked car from 25 meters away.
But he could only do so at 12 meters
A driver doesn't notice a cyclist in broad daylight.
He doesn't notice the bady smashing his windscreen, he carries on
driving.
And he gets his license back in a year!
Typical! The mythical right to drive seems to be regarded as more
important than the right to life itself. What is the betting the
magistrate is a motorist?
Quote:-
"Magistrates banned Kellett from driving for 12 months and ordered him to
pay a £230 fine, £15 victim surcharge and £35 costs. They did not give a
separate penalty for failing the eye sight test.

Chair of the bench Julie Hind said: 'We are very concerned for the safety of
every road user. We understand that you will not be applying for a new
licence in any case.'"

As you say Doug, the right to drive is a myth. Mr Kellet will not be driving
again.

Sorry, where does it say that? It says the magistrate /understands/
that. It doesn't say that DVLA knows anything about it. If he applies
again in a year, he'll (subject to normal checks including eyesight)
get a license, since the magistrate's understanding has no legal
force. If his lawyer was lying on his behalf to the court, or if as a
very elderly man he simply forgets his assurance, in neither case
would it be the first time this has happened.

So what do you say should have happened, your worship?