I don’t want to hijack the Desreen’s Rule post, but I was reading Benjamin Brooks-Hutton’s blog and there is one thing he says (as do some of the commentators) which he (and the commentators) are absolutely and utterly wrong about.
If an elderly driver is found guilty of dangerous driving – and especially if they cause death by dangerous driving – they deserve to go to jail for it. This is even more true if they purposely lied in order to stay on the roads.
I’m sorry, Ben, but they do. They are as guilty as a 17-year old would be. And they deserve a sentence of the same duration as the 17-year old would get.
Geoffrey Lederman showed no remorse, and made every attempt to get out of being prosecuted (causing even more pain than would otherwise have been experienced by Ben Hutton). Although little has been made of it, he claimed to have had “an episode” – in my books, given the evidence and the outcome of the trial, that is what is known in the civilised world as “a lie”. A straightforward case therefore took over two years to be dealt with. Lederman could have been put away for 14 years, but he got a very modest 18 months.
Mr Hutton is obviously still struggling to come to terms with what happened, whereas Lederman is almost certainly now back on the streets again (or will be within weeks). Since we know he tried to get out of the charges and showed no remorse, it doesn’t take much to imagine how he’s doing at the moment – and I’d lay odds that it’s not as bad for him as it is for Mr Hutton. Nor should Mr Hutton forget that Lederman came within millimetres of killing both him and his son, not to mention the fact that he ruined the life of Amy Werner, and very nearly the lives of five more pedestrians who he didn’t see (though I suspect that what they witnessed has hardly left their lives untarnished).
Lederman deserved to go to jail. He is very, very lucky he didn’t go there for longer.
This petition was set up by Benjamin Brooks-Dutton, whose wife was killed by an elderly driver who got the brake and gas pedals mixed up and accelerated into her as she walked with him and their young son. He also inflicted permanent brain damage and the loss of sight in one eye to an American student, Amy Werner, who was also in his path.
This blog contains numerous examples of elderly drivers causing death or injury as a direct result of their age, and the fact that they have often lied about their health in order to retain their licences.
Please sign the petition, and pass it on to as many of your friends as you can. It is vital that the government starts listening to sense instead of the voices of those whose votes it might lose if it took action. There is a semi-permanent link on the right of the page which I will keep live as long as the petition is live.
Regular readers will know that I have no sympathy for older drivers who end up killing or maiming people as a direct result of their age and deteriorating physical capabilities. Only last week I wrote about a 98-year old who was complaining that his insurance premium had gone up as a result of his age, and in that article I mentioned how a few weeks before that an 87-year old had got himself on to the M1 on the wrong carriageway near Nottingham and killed both himself and the passenger of another vehicle after he collided head on with them.
A few days later I wrote about an 82-year old woman who had gone missing in fog and instead of completing a 4 mile journey in perhaps 15 minutes, had been discovered by police 6 hours later 50 miles away, having taken a a route that utilised several very busy (and foggy) motorways. Thank God that she was recaptured before she could hurt anyone.
But this story had gone under my radar. It happened in 2012 and involved a young mother being killed when an 83-year old drove into her as she pushed her two-year old son in his pushchair. Another pedestrian was also left with permanent brain damage and the loss of sight in one eye.
That was 2012, remember. There is then a huge gap of more than 2 years until the next update appears anywhere. Geoffrey Lederman, the 83-year old in question, along with his lawyers had apparently been delaying the case going to court, trying to get it thrown out based on his “anxiety” and “stress”. However, once it got there it was the usual tale of an older driver in an automatic car getting confused about the brake and gas pedals, hitting the wrong one, and not having the capabilities to switch to the correct one instead. Lederman failed to see NINE pedestrians on the pavement as he mounted it at an average speed of 54mph (this was in a 30mph zone in West Hampstead, London). It also became clear that Lederman had defective eyesight and had previously suffered a stroke. The report I have linked to here also notes that:
Moments before the crash he had stopped to check his car after ‘nudging’ a pizza delivery man before carrying on his way, the court heard.
Mr Kark [prosecutor] said: ‘He said he lost control soon after that, within seconds he seemed to be on the wrong side of the road going at almost racing car speed.
‘He was tugging on the handbrake with no effect.’
In the minutes before the crash Lederman’s Mercedes was seen revving loudly for up to ten seconds as it sat stationary outside West Hampstead Underground Station.
So, he’d actually hit someone only minutes earlier and had been revving for some reason just prior to that!
There was no mechanical fault with the car, and investigators found that Lederman had mistakenly kept his foot on the gas pedal thinking it was the brake before driving off and causing this.
Mr Kark said: ‘It may be that when Geoffrey Lederman engaged the drive gear when he believed he was pressing the brake or hadn’t realised the car had slipped into neutral.’
At this point in time (2014), Lederman was expected to claim that he’d had some sort of seizure.
In December 2014, Lederman was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to 18 months in prison. He was also banned from driving for life. It’s worth pointing out that Lederman will probably be out of jail by now, though Mrs Brooks is still dead, and her son still has no mother. You have to read different versions of this latest story to piece together a true picture of what Lederman has put Mr Brooks-Dutton (Desreen’s husband) and Jackson through.
Lederman had been to a 7-hour bridge tournament and was driving home in the dark (it was a Saturday evening in early November). His defence team did indeed try to get the case thrown out on the grounds that Lederman had suffered “an episode” and could not be accountable for his actions. When that appeal failed, two doctors testified that it was “unfair” to try an old man who was now suffering mental health problems as a result of the accident.Fortunately, the judge was having none of it, and he accused the defence team of “holding a gun to the court’s head”. There is no mention of whether the two “doctors” were struck off – they damned well should have been.
Lederman has shown no signs of remorse at any time during proceedings (which have lasted more than two years).
Dr Jonathan Beckett, an expert in old age psychiatry at the private Nightingale Hospital in Marylebone, told the court that Mr Lederman’s mental health had deteriorated rapidly in the run-up to the trial and he had become very anxious.
He said: “He is also a very proud man who has led an unblemished life. He has a very strong moral code. The fact that he would be here in the court being tried in this way… he would have to view himself as a liar.”
Tom Kark QC, prosecuting, said during the appeal: “He is apparently able to conduct his life relatively normally… The court cannot be blackmailed into not trying serious crimes.”
Judge Clarke said: “Do you think that his concern about the destruction [of his reputation] is even greater than his concern that he has caused someone’s death? Does he not regard himself as having any duty towards the next of kin of the woman [Desreen Brooks]?
If ever anything bad happens to me, I want Tom Kark on my side.
It needs a loud voice from the public. Remember that these aged time bombs constitute a significant proportion of the voting population and their political allegiances would, I suggest, make this current government somewhat reluctant to upset them in any way. But the government cannot ignore the majority if that majority is large enough.
I was casually browsing the BBC website and came across this story. It states that “Ofsted is warning that pupils are being taught in ‘squalid’ schools that are unregistered and unsupervised”.
If you read the entire article at no point can you find out anything other than what the relatively vague Ofsted wording says. The first thing I wanted to know was what type of schools these were and even that information is missing. They mention schools, “some [of which] are believed to be in Birmingham and London”, but only include one name – Bordesley Independent School in Birmingham – but suggest that that one “has closed”.
The closest they get to what must be fairly obvious to the casual reader is:
…inspectors had been delayed from entering, but once inside had found “squalid conditions, including three single mattresses covered in filthy sheets in one room and no running water in the toilet areas”.
There was also “clear evidence of segregation, with separate classrooms for boys and girls” and “no evidence of appropriate vetting checks being carried out on staff”.
Inspectors also warned of “pupils being taught a narrow curriculum that was failing to prepare them for life in modern Britain”.
Going with the only piece of concrete information – Bordesley Independent School – a check on various UK business sites, such as Endole, reveals nothing about accounts. However, it does indicate that the director resigned on 28 September 2015. That director’s name was Naveed Naveed Hussain, and although he apparently “resigned” he is also listed as “current”. Other business sites still report the company as “active” and Mr Hussain as “current”.
You will note that I am following the BBC’s lead on this and skirting around the issue in case some dimwit (like that crazy woman from Manchester who wrote to me a few years ago) decides to play society’s favourite card.
A few days ago I wrote about how a 98-year old man had been quoted £20,000 to renew his car insurance. The do-good organisations are naturally up in arms over it, suggesting that he should be allowed to drive without any restrictions. I also pointed out how there was recently a fatal crash in Nottinghamshire after an 87-year old managed to get on the wrong side of the M1 at 2am one morning and collided with a van, killing himself and the passenger in the van.
Then this story came in on the newsfeeds. In this case, 82-year old Sheila Fitzgerald set out on a 4 mile journey from Ormskirk to Rainford, in Merseyside, in foggy conditions. She was reported missing, and was found six hours later by police 50 miles away in Gisburn. She apparently “took a wrong turning in the fog and became confused”.
Once we’re through with the Mail’s saccharin-sweet appraisal of the “extraordinary journey”, it is worth noting that in her “confusion” Mrs Fitzgerald had accidentally driven on to the M58, then the M6, then the M65, then the M6 again, before finally getting on to the A59 and travelling in exactly the opposite direction to her home location for about 25 miles. She didn’t have a bloody clue where she was! The entire journey would have taken about an hour – maybe an hour and half allowing for the weather – with an average driver. Mrs Fitzgerald took six hours, remember, and yet when questioned she believed she’d only “been driving for about 20 minutes” and was “just finding her way home”.
Thinking back to the 87-year old and his innocent victim who were killed after driving the wrong way up the M1, you can only shudder to think at what could have happened if fate had been less kind to Mrs Fitzgerald and all those other drivers on the Merseyside motorways that foggy night.
This article is from 2011, but it has had a run of hits lately.
At the time of the original article (2011) I had noticed on one of the forums that someone was saying they’d heard that from next year (2012) it will be an offence to park too far from the kerb (or next to dropped kerbs), and you’ll be fined depending on how far away you are.
As an aside, in that first link a clown of a councillor (Alistair Thompson, Conservative) says:
It is utterly ludicrous to expect our traffic wardens to go around measuring how close people are parked to the kerb.
What about people with wheelchairs or Zimmer frames that need a space to get out of the car?
Yes Alistair, old chap. Including those people. Just because you are infirm doesn’t mean you can go around behaving in a way which is likely to cause inconvenience, and possibly injury or death in the right circumstances, to others. Parking in the middle of the road is stupid, ignorant, and dangerous – whether you have a Zimmer frame or not.
The Traffic Management Act (2004) (TMA) is a detailed document, but the version here contains all amendments which have not yet been approved.
The thing is, even under existing laws (and that includes those that were existing before 31st March 2008), it has pretty much always been an offence to park “inconsiderately”, with the police having tow-away powers in order to deal with it. I have always told my pupils that parking more than 18 inches (or 45 centimetres) away from the kerb is too far, and since I read the stories several years ago about councils enforcing it I have added “you could get a parking ticket” to my explanation.
Let’s face facts here: 50cm is half a metre. It isn’t a parking position in any shape or form – it’s in the middle of the road where most people would be driving, and it is extremely inconsiderate to leave your car there, not to mention dangerous. I’m not sure if the TMA specifically mentions 50cm, or if that’s a limit set by the councils when applying the TMA to inconsiderate parking. To be honest, I don’t care – though I’m sure plenty of people out there will.
Can you get a fine for parking too far from the kerb?
Yes.
How far is too far?
I don’t know the exact figure, though 50cm keeps cropping up. A story from a few years ago (which I cannot find) reported wardens out with tape measures making sure no one was more than 18 inches (45 cm) away. If you “park” anywhere near that far away from the kerb – which amounts to not even moving closer to it when you stop – you really do deserve a fine!
Why do people park so badly?
They do it because they are bad drivers who can’t control the car properly. I can’t imagine that anyone would park like that on purpose. Can you?
A 98-year old man was given a renewal quotation of £20,000 on his car insurance in Wales. The story in Wales Online makes much of the fact that the chap in question, Ron Jones, is an Auschwitz survivor who used his car to sell poppies.
This has nothing at all to do with Auschwitz (Mr Jones was a PoW, and in a separate part of the camp to the gas chambers) or poppy-selling.
But it has everything to do with being 98 years old. The insurance company involved, Ageas, says that Mr Jones should not have received the quotation, and they’re looking into it. In fact, he should not have received a quote at all as he no longer meets their eligibility criteria.
The article also says that Mr Jones “used to pay between £200 and £300 a year”. This is as misleading as the stuff about Auschwitz and poppies, since Mr Jones’ most recent premium was ten times greater at £3,000 – no doubt as a result of his age. Mr Jones is undoubtedly someone to be admired for what he did for the country and for what he had to go through. And his poppy-selling is also worthy of admiration. But that doesn’t alter the fact that he is 98 years old.
A few weeks ago there was chaos in Nottingham – throughout Nottinghamshire, in fact. An 87-year old driver had managed to get on to the wrong carriageway of the M1 at around 2am on a Monday morning and collided with a Transit van going the proper way. The passenger in the van, 27-year old Michael Luciw, was killed. He was a “father, son, brother, uncle, grandson and nephew”. He had a baby daughter. The M1 was closed for virtually the entire day as major carriageway repairs had to be undertaken and congestion across the county was massive. The 87-year old was named as Albert Newman, and he also died in the incident. Heaven only knows how he managed to get on the wrong carriageway in the first place, since all the junctions are designed to make that extremely difficult on that stretch of the M1 for any decent driver.
No matter what the do-gooders might say, elderly drivers become an increasing risk the older they get. It doesn’t matter if, like Mr Jones, they can claim never to have had an accident. Advancing years coupled with deteriorating faculties mean that the risk of having a catastrophic one increases, and that means innocent people like Mr Luciw (and his daughter who will never know him) become the main victims. You just have to face the fact that 87 is one hell of an age to still be driving – most people die long before that – and 98 is even more worrying.
I know it sounds harsh, but Mr Jones isn’t a victim in all this. Nor is it a case of ageism. It’s just facing facts.
Please note that all my “Darwin Awards” posts are my own take on situations and have no connection with any real award. I just like the term, as it describes people who are idiots very appropriately.
The deception was successful until you take into account the fact that he was caught. And that he had no insurance. And that he was “over the prescribed limit” suggesting he was drunk. And that he tested positive for drug-driving (that may have been the positive test they refer to). And that he was in possession of a prohibited lock knife.
His friend is also now a nominee for the 2015 Darwins. I mean, how could anyone be so stupid?
To add to the gridlock caused by road works – arranged by Nottingham’s incompetent council – an incompetent motorist decided to increase congestion today by “[becoming] wedged on the [tram] tracks” on Lenton Lane. You can’t beat a good euphemism.
I have yet to find a version of the story which makes it clear that the retard who was driving had entered a tram-only area and had actually fallen into the track cut out. The phrase “became wedged” doesn’t tell the half of it.
Whoever it was should be banned for life. If you’re stupid enough to do something like this, God only knows what else you’d be capable of if you were allowed to carry on driving.
This came in via the newsfeeds, and it looks to be quite serious (I’m basing that on the fact I’ve never seen such an alert before).
The Dridex malware is apparently able to harvest bank details from your computer and already UK losses are stated to be around £20 million. Dridex is spread through attachments in emails, but it can only do so if the attachment is opened.
A typical infected email might come through as an order confirmation (for something you have never ordered) with an invoice attached. Come to think of it, I’ve had quite a few of these in the past – not necessarily Dridex – but I never open them if I haven’t ordered anything that tallies with the email details.
Advice is to install good antivirus software and – if you’re infected – contact your bank and credit card company immediately. You’re also urged to report the problem to Action Fraud using the details in the link I gave above.
Apparently, only computers running Windows are at risk.
