It’s a tragic story, but the fact that Lutman’s father was a driving instructor is totally irrelevant. That’s the Daily Mail for you, though.
The law in this country really is in a mess when you read the full story. Lutman was the driver, to be sure, but the deceased – Ian Deer, also 19 – appeared to be at least as responsible for what happened. Lutman didn’t want to drive, but was eventually coerced into doing so by Deer. In fact, Deer was messing with the dual controls (dangerous enough by itself) and even pulled Lutman’s arm off the steering wheel just before the crash. He was not wearing a seatbelt, and text messages received by Lutman made it clear that it was Deer’s idea to take the car keys.
Deer’s mother does not blame Lutman for the crash.
Lutman’s whole life is now ruined by a 3 year and 4 month jail sentence (it would have already been seriously damaged by what he had done, and what he never tried to deny responsibility for). I’m not defending him in any way, but far worse offenders from the dregs of society get away with much more lenient sentences. Lutman, on the other hand, was a good student at Leicester University, with a bright future ahead of him.
Coolledge was banned for a further 3 years just for the driving rap. The alcohol one is still to come.
What always fascinates me in these stories is how anyone could live a life like that. I mean, to have been in such trouble permanently from at least the age of 12, and to show no signs of trying to crawl up out of the pond and improve yourself. You really cannot believe such people are human, sometimes.
The do-gooders would berate you for thinking that. But what will Coolledge and those like him do next? They have no concept of “rules”, so other people mean nothing to them.
You’d think that being caught drink driving would be a fairly simple matter to resolve. You know, some jerk drinks too much and drives erratically, then along comes Mr Plod and confirms he’d had too much. The courts then formally punish the miscreant. Job done.
Andrew Seeley, 32, obviously thinks differently. He was so drunk he didn’t know where he was going (in the news story’s own words). When he noticed he was being followed he tried to drive off at speed. When eventually stopped he was found to be more than 2½ times the legal limit. But then it gets amusing.
Seeley refused a second breath test (probably after realising how far over he was) on the grounds of having a collapsed lung from abusing aerosol gas when he was younger. He refused blood samples on the grounds of having a fear – no, a phobia – of needles. He denied driving under the influence of drink or drugs, smugly believing his wild stories would save him. He claimed that he had swerved across the road to avoid an unknown creature:
It was bigger than a cat. It was living. I can’t say what it was.
It reminds me of an old Marty Feldman sketch, where he’s in a vet’s waiting room with a large basket containing some unseen-but-monstrous creature. He says to a little old lady with a budgie in a cage:
I looked him up in the Cattle-breeder’s Guide – he wasn’t in there; I looked him up in the Standard Book of British Birds – he wasn’t in there either; I finally found him in the Book of Revelations.
The best part is that the Sheriff (this was in Scotland) ignored all that crap and found him guilty of drink driving. He was banned for four years and given 100 hours community service. The only thing the Sheriff said was that he couldn’t be sure if Seeley really did have a phobia about needles and so he didn’t find him guilty of refusing to provide a specimen.
Seeley obviously lives in a different world to normal people.
You have to laugh. Anna Louise Smith, 21, is a student studying nursing in Swansea. As a prank, she decided to move a friend’s car to make it look like it had been stolen.
You need to be a student to appreciate how “funny” this sort of prank is. However, you don’t need to be a student to appreciate how funny it is if the police turn up in the middle of your jolly wheeze, decide that you’re acting suspiciously, and subsequently discover that you’re also twice the legal limit as a result of having been to the annual Summer Ball. If you’re a student – and especially if you’re the student – this, of course, suddenly makes the whole affair distinctly unfunny,
Smith’s defence lawyer reckoned that she’d only moved the car around the corner, and that a ban would be particularly hard on his client. The magistrates ignored that crap and banned Smith from driving for 12 months and fined her over £200.
It’s worth bearing in mind that, at 21, she must only have passed within the last couple of years. I’m assuming that she’ll have to do it all again – with the associated expense.
I’m sure most people will have heard about the incident outside a school in South Wales, where a driver ploughed into children, hospitalizing several.
Now that things have calmed down a bit, the driver is claiming that he blacked out after coughing. I’m sure that the authorities themselves will decide if this is a valid excuse of not, but I find it difficult to accept that this could happen at all, or – at the very least – that someone to whom it could happen so easily should even be driving a car. Especially an Audi, which is designed to go fast in the first place.
There are also calls for the school crossing patroller to be “recognised” for attempting to shield the children from the rampaging car armed only with her patroller’s “lollipop”. She ended up with two broken knees, a broken shoulder, broken elbow, and cuts and bruises. All extremely painful, and all the kinds of injuries that take a long time to recover from – if at all. But it could all have been a whole lot worse.
A reader sent me this link from the BBC website. It tells how Ian Broughall, 56, caused chaos on the A14 near Cambridge by riding his mobility scooter on it. Note that the A14 has a speed limit of 70mph, and is one of the busiest roads in the country. Broughall’s scooter, on the other hand, had a top speed of 8mph along with the extra disadvantage of its driver.
Broughall seems to be one of those people who is an olive short of a pizza (which I’m sure he isn’t), and yet is still allowed out unsupervised (the world is full of that kind of person, unfortunately):
Mr Broughall said he was “usually very responsible”, but added he was “not stupid” and would find a different route next time he wanted to go out.
The problem is, he is also quoted as saying:
I’ve done it once before, and I was doing just fine until I saw all these flashing lights behind me – and that’s when the trouble started.
So he is clearly not as “not stupid” as he would have us believe! He is unable to distinguish between “doing fine” and being bloody lucky. He could have been killed – but worse, he could have caused many others to be killed if he hadn’t have been stopped. He is an irresponsible fool, and no amount of wishy-washy baby talk about it being a nice day and him wanting to take some pictures is going to alter that. He shouldn’t have been on that road, and he endangered the lives of many by doing so. It’s frightening to think that he may not accept this rap – either from the police, or from those who comment on the matter.
As if to emphasise the questionable mental state of some mobility scooter owners, there is a link to another BBC story from a few days ago where a very old (70-80) female rider knocked a cyclist into a river. She didn’t even stop – something which is common where elderly people are involved.
On the one hand, there is perhaps an argument for her receiving some sort of award in recognition of her choice of target. But on the other, more serious hand, her victim could have drowned. As it was, he suffered cuts and bruises.
Mayor John Windell said he had become “concerned” about the use of the scooters after hearing from pedestrians who had experienced “near escapes”.
Mind you, that’s about the limit of the sense he makes. After that he loses the plot completely, talking of making pavements wider, or having special lanes on roads. He stops short of suggesting that cars and pedestrians be banned from town centres.
Sometimes there is no solution that keeps everyone happy. You either accept that mobility scooters are going to keep getting involved in situations that will one day lead to a serious accident; or you insist that the people who use them have to pass fitness-to-ride tests, and revoke that licence if they fail.
EDIT: I have been “warned” of legal action for “slander” by the guy in the first story I referred to. He means “libel” (slander involves the spoken word).
He could have killed himself. He could have killed others. He is lucky that the only thing he has to worry about is being likened jokingly to a pizza with one of its toppings missing! I’d be surprised if his friends and family didn’t use far stronger words when he came home.
Another defence lawyer who isn’t very good at his job. Anthony Paul McNevin, 62, got into his car in the early hours and drove 200 yards to his house in Cornwall. Police saw him narrowly miss bollards and pulled him over. He was subsequently found to be more than twice the legal limit.
His defence, Mark Charnley, told magistrates that McNevin had made:
…the silliest decision of his life…
Not quite, Mr Charnley. The “silliest” decision (I prefer the word “stupidest”) would have been to have used the car in the first place for a 200 yard journey.
Damien Stansfield, 30, has been sent to prison after being caught driving whilst banned for the 14th time. His previous ban was only 18 months ago and was for 38 months, but Stansfield didn’t think it was necessary to wait out the whole ban.
His defence lawyer seems to be new to this game. Either that, or a worrying new path of blame is manifesting itself:
He was carrying out some work for a customer. He normally has a friend who would test-drive the vehicle but he was not available on that day. He was put under some pressure to return the vehicle as soon as possible.
He made a foolish decision to drive it. He accepts the offence and was fully co-operative at the police station. He accepts he needs some help and advice. He felt under pressure not to let the customer down.
He was let down by the person who normally does the driving.
So, Stansfield’s decision to drive whilst banned – for the 14th time, remember – was some other guy’s fault!
Fortunately, magistrates took this for the load of crap that it was and jailed Stansfield for 17 weeks. He was also banned from driving for 4 years this time.
This came in on the newsfeeds from Yahoo! Answers. Bear in mind that it is American, but you can still draw some massive conclusions about the juvenile mentality and attitude in the 21st Century.
One guy posts a “question”, which runs as follows (all spelling and grammar left in intact):
Whats was worst driving school you ever had?
I recently signed up for a driving school. I was cheap and signed up for the most inexpensive one in my neighborhood. I know how to drive, but haven’t driven in years, so I just wanted to refresh my memory. My driving instructor could barely speak English and so are their other instructors. I almost crashed, because I could not understand what exactly does the guy want me to do.
Even though I signed up for a package, I am leaving this school and now finishing my lessons with them. Safety comes first, and if I can’t understand them I can’t drive safely. Funniest part is the guy yelling in a foreign language. The heck?
I am gong back to my old driving school. I bit pricey, but worth it.
Whats was worst driving school you ever had?
Sorry for the rant. Should have gotten a car back in the days and not forgotten how to drive.
Additional Details
I would probably teach myself, but I don’t have a car. I knew how to drive, but forgot the details after several years of now being behind the wheel. I plan on buying one, once my memory of driving comes back.
It’s worrying that the option to “teach myself” exists, but more worrying still is the answer that the original asker chose as “the best”:
i was born with a psychotic mom and my dad left early. because my mom wasn’t 100% right in the head and didn’t know how to drive properly herself, i had to teach myself how to drive. in a shitbox ’90 Quad-4 Grand Am with no power steering, a slipping transmission, bald tires, and busted tie rods. if i could do it, you can. schools are a waste of money.
As long as idiots like this can “teach themselves” and freely move about the country – even the world – without supervision, then I would have to agree that driving schools ARE a waste of money, particularly in America. I mean, why spend a penny when you don’t have to, and can then drive around in a clearly illegal vehicle for as long as you want? And this guy obviously owes a lot more to his “mom” than he realises.
Meanwhile, most of America continues to have semantic arguments over things like whether banning the use of mobile phones when you’re driving is against your Constitutional Rights! Frighteningly, the barometer seems to be moving towards the “yes, it is” side.
A story came through on the newsfeeds concerning an accident in Australia, where an elderly nun had an epileptic seizure and hit a female cyclist, who was killed.
I think my position on elderly drivers is clear, but in this particular case it wasn’t age that was to blame, but an epileptic fit. However, the website carrying the story is a cyclists’ site – my position where cyclists are concerned is also clear – and it makes a big issue out of calls by the dead woman’s husband for tougher measures against elderly drivers. As I say, it was an epileptic seizure and not specifically an age-related issue which caused the accident.If anything, it should be a call for tougher measures against epileptics!
Moving on, though, I noticed a couple of references to UK incidents in the article. One, from 2011, tells how an 85-year old ploughed through a group of riders, killing one of them, but who apparently didn’t realise anything had happened until his wife told him. Another story, from 2012, tells of an 84-year old who broke the back of a cyclist when he drove into him as a result of defective eyesight.
We need to get some perspective here. I agree wholeheartedly that anyone with poor eyesight or ill-health, and whose driving is affected as a result, should be taken off the road by force. They should not be allowed back behind the wheel unless they can prove their deficiencies have been corrected, and that should apply whether they’re 16 or 86. Ironically, the UK prides itself in allowing disabled people to get a licence earlier than the able-bodied, and in not taking licences off people when the evidence is screaming out that they should not be allowed near anything with moving parts.
But when you throw cyclists into the mix you have a completely different issue, because a large proportion of them are their own worst enemies. In that 2011 story, for example, the group involved was on a sponsored ride from Belfast to London, via Dublin and Bristol. This detail alone means that they would hardly have been riding in what I would call an inconspicuous manner. What I’m really getting at is that their purpose would probably have meant that they were on main roads, at all times of the day, and if they were anything like most of the cyclists I have to deal with they would have been riding at least two abreast. The purpose of their ride would have more than likely resulted in other behaviours likely to obstruct motorists and other road users on such roads.
None of that can possibly justify what the car driver did by riding into them, nor does it put up any sort of defence for his age-related weaknesses. But it certainly provides at least a partial explanation for why it might have happened when it did. After all, if the cyclists hadn’t have been there, the driver wouldn’t have hit them.
While I was out on lessons today, there were cyclists everywhere, and nearly all of them were causing obstructions. In one particular case, two of the idiots were riding side-by-side along the A52 towards Radcliffe-on-Trent on a 70mph dual carriageway. They were completely blocking one whole lane. They ought to have been on the cycle path which was a mere two metres to their left, but that’s not what these morons do. In another example, I was on a single track lane and as I rounded a corner an idiot on a bike came flying round the opposite way on the wrong side. These are not isolated examples, and “sensible” isn’t a word that appears in their vocabulary.
Since the Olympics last year the number of people riding bikes has skyrocketed, and the number of Silver Spandex Boys – middle-aged and elderly riders – has increased dramatically. Of course, no one is demanding that their eyesight or other faculties be tested, least of all the blinkered biker websites. These riders require no training and no licence, so no one can do anything to keep them off the roads. You have to face the fact that the only reason more of them aren’t injured or killed is because of the evasive action taken by drivers when they encounter them. It’s like when you have young children who run into the road without looking – every now and then one gets hit, but most drivers manage to slam the brakes on and avoid them.
Roads are specifically for cars, not cyclists. Cyclists are allowed to use them, but very few cyclists make any attempt to avoid conflict and – either through stupidity or arrogance – put themselves and others in danger. All that matters to the average cyclist is the cyclist!
into children, hospitalizing several.
I think my position on elderly drivers is clear, but in this particular case it wasn’t age that was to blame, but an epileptic fit. However, the website carrying the story is a cyclists’ site – my position where cyclists are concerned is also clear – and it makes a big issue out of calls by the dead woman’s husband for tougher measures against elderly drivers. As I say, it was an epileptic seizure and not specifically an age-related issue which caused the accident.If anything, it should be a call for tougher measures against epileptics!
certainly provides at least a partial explanation for why it might have happened when it did. After all, if the cyclists hadn’t have been there, the driver wouldn’t have hit them.