Category - Bad Drivers

I wrote a few days ago about a further brace of accidents involving old drivers. Interestingly, there is a further story connected with the incident involving 93-year old Jim Sims.

Before we start reaching for the Kleenex to mop up the tears over this sob story, let’s remind ourselves that Sims hit the gas instead of the brake at a T-junction, shot forward, narrowly missed a cyclist, crashed through a fence, and hit concrete bollards on a park green. Sims’ £22,000 1.8 litre Astra convertible was written off in the accident so it was hardly a minor scrape he had.He argues that he “passed” a Specsavers eye test, and yet he could not read a number plate at the legal 20.5 metre limit at the scene of the accident. And I know that if my foot slips off a pedal for any reason, it doesn’t press down hard and continuously on another!

But it would appear that the police are the ones who are at fault:

“There’s no justice,” [Sims] said…

“Fifty years I’ve been driving… down the M11 and the M25 north circular – and I have never had a scrape…

“All the police want to do is to stop me driving because I look old. They are trying to get me off the road…

“I’m a prisoner in my own home now. These four walls are a prison to me.

“Without that car I am lost. I have got a bus pass yes, but I have to walk around to the bus stop and I can’t do that.”

His son said:

It’s disgraceful. They didn’t have to crucify him but they did – they intimidated him.

Well, I’ve got news for Mr Sims and son. The way he drove 50 years ago is NOT a measure of how he drives now. At 93, he IS old, and it is highly likely that his foot “slipping off the brake” is intimately connected with that. In any individual’s case, there comes a point where sympathy and compassion has to be overtaken by common sense, and Jim Sims has just discovered that point.

It’s really frightening sometimes. I have a late-middle aged pupil whose eyesight worries me. I’ve already made him go to the opticians and get a new prescription, and yet his ability to read a number plate at 20.5 metres is still borderline. He can read it – I wouldn’t be teaching him otherwise – but add another metre or two and he can’t. This causes problems with him anticipating situations, because road signs are blurred to him until they are within his 20-25 metre range. That’s not very far when you are travelling at 60 or 70mph and need to take the next exit, and it says to me that 20.5 metres is nowhere near far enough for the roadside test.

This pupil is desperate for his licence, and in spite of my talks about monitoring his vision and not driving if it gets any worse, I know he will continue to drive no matter how bad his eyesight gets – and as I say, it has already deteriorated to the point where it is right on the limit. I shudder to think that he might still be driving in even 10 years time, let alone in 40!

Jim Sims has not been banned for life. Perhaps he should have been, and at 93 – which just emphasises the likely difference between driving now and driving 50 years ago – it is perhaps as good as a lifetime ban. But he has simply been told he must pass a driving test if he wants to continue driving.

If Mr Sims is as good as he claims to be, then perhaps passing the test again will only keep him off the road for a few months, and by the end of summer he could be back behind the wheel – hopefully in something a bit smaller than a 1.8 litre pratmobile..

But somehow, I doubt it.

Elderly drivers have simply got to accept that the chances of their skills declining dramatically overnight are far greater than the same thing happening to a younger driver, simply because of their age. Being old is a risk in itself in many aspects of daily life, and especially so when operating moving equipment. It doesn’t matter what younger drivers (or any other drivers) “do” on the roads. What matters is why they do it, and simply being unable to cut it due to reaching 80- or 90-plus is a distinct situation with proven dangers.

This one made me laugh. Nottingham City Council plans to get in on the act when the new careless driving laws come into force in July by having a mobile camera travel around trying to catch drivers in the act.

The article begins:

Road hogs, tailgaters, and those who perform U-turns on roads without warning put others at risk through their poor driving.

U-turns without warning? Perhaps the council has realised that its idiotic approach to road works and road closures is so frustrating to motorists that there is money to be had if it can therefore catch them trying to find alternative routes.

If it really wanted to make some money out of dangerous U-turns and other inconsiderate behaviour, all it would have to do is track every taxi in the city. They’d collect enough money to pay off the National Debt inside six weeks.

Nottingham City Council needs to get its priorities straight and sort out the mess it has caused by sanctioning unlimited road works first, before it starts trying to twist the knife further into the ribs of the motorist.

Michael (or Mitchell, in some stories) Gough, 24, had his driving test booked. According to his story to the courts, his mother’s car had broken down and she was unable to take him to his test, so he decide to drive there himself in a BMW.

For reasons which haven’t been explained, the plates on his BMW (it doesn’t say whose car this was… EDIT: apparently it was a high-powered BMW, and it belonged to Gough) were actually the ones for his father’s Fiat (that isn’t explained, either). A police patrol car flagged this discrepancy up to the officers within, so the officers tried to flag Gough down. When they asked him to open the door he floored it and embarked upon a 70mph chase through 30mph zones. He ended up smashing into a parked car, and was caught as he tried to do a runner.

This specimen’s lawyer explained that:

…his actions were out of character: “[Gough] was very anxious to take his test. When he was stopped he made a decision which was totally out of character – it is baffling that he behaved this way,” adding that his decision to drive away from police was, “foolish”.

Let’s just recap what Gough was guilty of:

• driving whilst uninsured
• failing to stop for the police
• driving on false plates
• breaking the speed limit
• being involved in an accident due to his own dangerous driving
• attempting to leave the scene of an accident
• trying to resist arrest

For someone who was acting “out of character” he sure chose a good way to experiment, didn’t he? The report continues:

It’s not yet clear why the number plates had been swapped over, but we do know it was a police search for a stolen BMW in the area that lead to police attempting to pull him over.

So there is also the suspicion of a stolen the car with false plates being used for the proposed driving test!

So, Gough hasn’t passed his test and yet he owns a “high-powered” BMW. It had as-yet unexplained false plates that alerted the police. Gough was prepared to drive off (and if he knew he had false plates, that provides something of a more valid reason than the pathetic “out of character” claim by his lawyer). He leapt from the car while it was still moving – a favoured skill of the car thief – to try and run away (you don’t do that without having had practice). The photograph of him shows him wearing a hoodie and with what looks like a fag cupped in his hand. He has been banned for 30 months and given a suspended prison sentence.

Unfortunately, it appears that he is a father. God help the kid with a role model like this to look up to.

This story reports how James Sims, a 93-year old driver, has been banned from driving for 6 months after he hit the gas pedal instead of the brake, and continued to do so. He shot across a busy road, narrowly missed a cyclist, and crashed through a park fence. Tests carried out by the police at the time of the accident showed that he also had defective eyesight (i.e. he failed the eyesight test).

PC Andy Sumner of Chelmsford Road Policing Unit, said: “Essex Police are dealing with more instances where motorists are driving after a point in their life when they are not fit to do so through mobility, reactions, eye sight, or the combination of medications…”

The six-month ban is a joke – he should be banned permanently. However, the court has ruled that he must pass an ordinary driving test in order to regain his licence, so in some respects it is perhaps as good as a lifetime ban. But on the other hand, there are some unfortunate souls out there with ADI badges who “specialise” in putting this kind of person on the road in the first place. And that makes you wonder who is the real guilty party when some old or infirm drivers have accidents.

In a completely separate, but almost identical incident, a 92-year old driver, Ernest Glover, was killed when he shot out of a private road and forced a collision involving another vehicle. Police have concluded that he, too, hit the wrong pedal.

PC [David] Pygott said this involuntary acceleration was common in elderly people driving cars with automatic gears, as Mr Glover had been.

There is more than just coincidence involved here. Fortunately, and unlike in the Cassie McCord case, and the Neil Colquhoun tragedy, no innocent party was killed. But there are numerous other examples of harm caused by these elderly fools. Far too many examples, in fact.

It’s obvious that this serious problem with elderly drivers just won’t go away. And it makes you wonder when something sensible is going to be done about it instead of allowing the bleeding hearts to get their own way all the time.

This came in on the news feed (the story is now truncated, as it happened a long time ago if you’re reading it now). Richard Crookes, 19, was more than twice the legal limit, wasn’t wearing a seat belt, and had never taken a driving lesson in his life.

He crashed the black Renault Clio he was driving (so add “no insurance” and any number of other related offences to the list) and was killed. His passenger sustained injuries but recovered. Evidence from the passenger suggests speeding was also involved:

“It was a terrifying journey and I asked him to stop and slow down,” he told the inquest.

His mother confirmed at the inquest that he didn’t even have a provisional driving licence!

Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Paul Kelly said: “The journey was uninsured and Richard Crookes was unfit to drive due to the alcohol consumed.

“He drove at excess speed and lost control, leaving the side of the A161.

“Richard Crookes was not wearing a seatbelt and sustained injuries not sustainable with life.

“It is a very sad and tragic waste of a young life.”

My view is less sympathetic. It was lucky he didn’t kill anyone else. Fortunately, there’s now no chance of him ever doing so. Sometimes, Higher Justice turns up an ace.

I was browsing the BBC website and found this clip of a near-miss on a level crossing in Llangadog, Carmarthenshire. The clip shows the incident from the CCTV cameras both sides of the crossing.

Let’s get one thing straight: there is no way that the prat in that car should still have a driving licence, or ever be allowed to hold one again. And he or she should probably be in care for their own benefit, as well as everyone else’s.

Unfortunately, our society doesn’t use logic like that, and the solution – obviously – is that “level crossings “need to be made safer”. That’s because flashing lights, and all the signs and road markings, and the big metal rail-like things in the road, coupled with the fact that the prat in question (who appeared to be going a little on the quick side as he passed through) and probably lives in the area, are clearly not enough.

The story doesn’t mention if he was prosecuted.

The problem is that even when crossings have barriers there are morons out there who either don’t see them or don’t care. ITN covered the same topic a couple of months ago, and their clips unbelievably show women with pushchairs running past red lights and descending barriers! Me and one of my pupils even saw one a couple of months ago when a woman in Sneinton wove her car past stopped traffic and around descending barriers – I’m sure the violation camera got her, and I hope she enjoys her lessons as she works towards passing her test again after however long she was banned for (though I must say, she is probably still driving – her sort always does).

Robert Davenport, 29, crashed his brother’s car into a tree after an 80mph police chase through residential streets at 3.55am on March 7. He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, failing to stop after an accident, driving without insurance, and not having a full licence. He was jailed for a paltry 8 months, and banned from driving for 2 years.

During the chase, he committed all the usual offences his kind is famous for – hitting 80mph in a 30mph zone, and going the wrong way around bollards. His pathetic excuse was that “he panicked”. His defence lawyer said it was “a spur of the moment reaction”. The judge was surprised at what he heard:

Judge Richard Griffith-Jones exclaimed: “He’s not passed a test and he’s driving at 80 in a residential area!”

His defence further argued that he’d injured his back in the accident and had been unable to work, and that this also made him unsuitable for unpaid work – which his defence pushed for as a sentence anyway!

The judge wasn’t convinced:

Where someone like you, who has not even learned to drive properly, drives at 80 miles an hour along residential streets, even at that time of night, then you risk causing really serious or fatal injury.

I cannot overlook this; and you will get an immediate prison sentence.

It’s just a shame that he then lost touch with reality by passing such a ridiculously lenient sentence.

This story from the Herts and Essex Observer tells how Zahid Masood – an illegal immigrant – caused the death of a 19-year old woman as the result of using a mobile phone while driving on the M25 nine years ago. Masood was only a provisional licence holder (i.e. a learner), and so he was uninsured, and not supposed to be on the motorway in the first place.

Following the accident in 2003, he gave false information and somehow managed to slink back to Pakistan like a rat to evade the Law. He returned in 2007 under a different name – God only knows how the British immigration system works if scum like him can do this so easily – and smugly thought he’d got away with it.

At this point, the Judge handling the case demonstrates that total lack of insight common to his kind:

Judge Statman told him: “You had no right to be on the motorway unsupervised. You will appreciate the devastating consequences of your actions…

That is totally wrong. Masood obviously had no “appreciation” of the “devastating consequences” at all. Anyone who is prepared to do what he did – and I mean kill someone, lie, leave the country, then come back illegally whilst still trying to hide – has no appreciation of other people at all.

Masood was arrested in 2012 after an officer who was involved with the previous case recognised him. After 9 years that’s damned good police work!

Masood was jailed for four years and nine months, and banned from driving for 7 years. It’s worth noting that for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving (enhanced by perverting the curse of justice) the judge could have put him away for up to 14 years, and it’s only when you understand the stupidity inherent in English Law that you even partly begin to understand why he got away with the pathetic sentence in question, and why there is no mention of deportation. The seven year driving ban is also meaningless, since his kind will continue to drive illegally anyway.