Epileptic Causes Fatal Crash

A nasty story in the BBC News. Giles Furnival is an epileptic who had not informed the DVLA of his illness. He was suffering several fits a month, yet somehow decided that suddenly being inside a car which didn’t have a driver (when a fit came) and was going at anything up to 70mph (legally) wasn’t a risk to himself or anyone else.

In September last year, he was travelling “at speed” on the M25 when he had an epileptic fit. It appears he veered on to the hard shoulder, then veered back and hit the car being driven by a male and his girlfriend. The woman, Laura Williams, died.

Furnival was jailed for 3½ years, banned from driving for five, and instructed to take an extended test (fortunately, the law on epilepsy effectively means he won’t be able to drive for much longer if he keeps having fits).

But he should have been put away for a lot longer and banned for life. Laura Williams won’t get a second chance, but this evil specimen has.

The law associated with epilepsy is rather complicated in many respects. However, it is extremely simple in one main area: if you are having frequent fits then you are not fit to drive and cannot do so. You need to have gone 12 months without a seizure before you can even be considered fit to think about driving again.

Virtual Let-off for Drunk Driver on A66

A very old post.

I said a couple of posts ago that we could do with people like the Irish Judge who refused to overturn a test fail decision. Then, I came across this story in The Northern Echo.

Sandra Summers, 47, missed her slip road on the A66 in Teesdale, was driving on grass, and hit a lorry. She carried on driving from the scene of the accident on the wrong side of the road for about a mile before two lorries helped stop her. For anyone who hasn’t been there, the A66 is one of the most dangerous roads (and most likely to be closed due to an accident) in the country.

She was found to have FOUR TIMES the legal limit of alcohol in her.

There was the usual type of excuse (a family bereavement), entirely out of character, extremely sorry, doesn’t usually drink except on holiday… blah-blah-blah.

And guess what the sentence was? Suspended 12-week jail sentence and a 28-day 9am-6pm curfew. Oh, and a 3-year ban.

So, not a lot, really.

I agree with the comments being left at the foot of the story. She should have been fined, locked up, and banned from driving permanently.

The British legal system is a joke.

Glaswegian Driving Instructor Three Times Over Limit

Scotch & Car KeysThe Glaswegian reports that a driving instructor was caught behind the wheel while more than THREE TIMES the legal drink-drive limit for alcohol.

The 43-year old was one of 57 drivers caught in a police crackdown on drink and drugs.

Four people were repeat offenders in the first week (five in the second) of the operation and the courts may seize their vehicles. May.

We have way too complicated a system over here. If you’re over the limit behind the wheel there should be no escape hatches you can use.

Mind you, the instructor’s career is now gone for good. There’s no way he’ll be able to remain as a driving instructor now. Or if he does, then the ADI Register is a complete joke.

However, as the Montrose Review clearly shows, there is a hell of a lot wrong out there (and it isn’t just in Scotland).

Irish Learner Fails to get Test Result Reversed

This is a very, very old article.

The same story is covered in the Independent and The Irish Times.

The 61-year old plasterer, Raymond Hefferman, has failed 10 tests since 2004. The Irish system means he can still drive on a provisional licence.

Hefferman took his latest result to a district court in an attempt to have the result reversed. His examiner/instructor on test recorded 26 faults, which included driving straight through a STOP sign and through a mini-roundabout.

He also failed to signal, ignored instructions, over-revved, and didn’t check around him properly (his observations were “particularly poor”, said the examiner).

Apparently, after being told where to go on the mini-roundabout, Hefferman drove straight over it and then said:

So where is this mini roundabout?

His defence seemed to rest solely on the fact that he has been driving for 44 years (I’ve mentioned previously how lax the Irish system used to be – and yet Irish drivers can come over to the UK or any other EU territory and drive without hindrance).

This was his seventh appeal against a result! He said:

this injustice had gone on long enough.

He has been blacklisted by driving testers.

The Judge, Tim Lucey, said:

If one Grade 3 fault is enough to fail, then five is plenty. As far as I’m concerned, the test was properly conducted.

Way to go, Judge. We need people like you over here.

Another US Tragedy

This one is from California. Kaitlyn Dunaway, 18, tried to text while she was driving. She ploughed into a mother and toddler, killing the child and seriously injuring the mother. Echoes of the Keisha Bianca Wall case we had here recently.

The article says that Dunaway is the first known person in California to be charged with causing death by texting and driving. Surprisingly, the maximum prison term she is looking at is just one year in a county jail. She admits full responsibility.

Aside from the obvious “rot in hell” sentiments you’d expect from certain quarters of the public, what also surprises me is the belief of the reporter that:

I don’t see what would be accomplished by locking away this young woman for years on end. She made a terrible mistake that she will have to live with every day for the rest of her life.

Let me just say again that the MAXIMUM sentence is ONE YEAR in a county jail. I’m not quite sure where the reporter gets the higly emotive “years on end” from.

But my biggest question is: why is it different for her?

Would it matter if it were a man? The reporter, Tammerlin Drummond, is a woman – as is the accused. You could easily apply the “I don’t see what would be accomplished…” line to anyone and any crime. Does it really matter that it is a woman who is involved?

I suspect that to some people, it does.

The article goes on to mention “[scaring] sense into people”. I commented on that in the previous story. We need to wake up to the fact that the only way of scaring sense into people is to enforce serious penalties on those who transgress, not to mollycoddle them with tragedies, however poignant they might be.

Sad stories do not work.

America is a million miles behind the UK on this, and we’re pretty crap on enforcing it ourselves. And yet enforcement is so easy. Every day I glance in my rearview mirror and see people who are obviously texting (or doing something that is equally distracting down by their groins). Surely the police could do this in unmarked cars?

Crackdown on Uninsured Driving Commences

This is a very, very old article from 2011. DSA is now DVSA.

An email alert from the DSA:

Crackdown on uninsured driving gets underway

New laws to tackle uninsured driving will be enforced from today.

Under the new Continuous Insurance Enforcement law it’s an offence to be the keeper of an uninsured vehicle, rather than just to drive when uninsured.

From today, registered keepers identified as having an uninsured vehicle will be sent a letter telling them that their vehicle appears to be uninsured, and warning them of the consequences if they fail to take action. Those who don’t act on this warning – either by taking out insurance or declaring their vehicle off the road – will receive a £100 fine and could have their vehicle clamped, seized and destroyed. They may also face a court prosecution.

All drivers can check their vehicle is recorded correctly for free at askMID.com

Under the new system:

  • DVLA will work in partnership with the Motor Insurers’ Bureau to identify uninsured vehicles
  • motorists will receive a letter telling them that their vehicle appears to be uninsured and warning them that they will be fined unless they take action
  • if the keeper fails to insure the vehicle they will be given a £100 fine
  • if the vehicle remains uninsured – regardless of whether the fine is paid – further action will be taken. If the vehicle is on public land it could then be clamped, seized and destroyed; alternatively court action could be taken, with the offender facing a fine of up to £1,000
  • seized vehicles would only be released when the keeper provided evidence that the registered keeper is no longer committing the offence of having no insurance and the person proposing to drive the vehicle away is insured to do so

Vehicles with a valid Statutory Off Road Notice (SORN) won’t be required to be insured.

For more details, visit direct.gov.uk/stayinsured

The same story is also being covered in the press and media.

A Terrible Story, but…

This one came through in the newsfeeds this morning. It’s a terrible tragedy – two 18-year olds were killed in a motor crash in North Carolina, USA.

However, consider the comment:

Police estimated that the car involved in Monday’s crash on Overlook Road in South Asheville was traveling at 65-70 mph in a 35 mph zone.

We’ve tried shock tactics in the UK, with graphic videos on YouTube, and various talks and lectures. But does it change the way people behave?

The problem is that time heals all wounds – ALL wounds. So although a tragedy like this gets everyone saying “Oh, I’ve learned my lesson”, what they really mean is that they have learned the lesson until the memory fades, then their regular behaviour resurfaces. And those not connected with the event just carry on regardless anyway.

Whenever something like this happens, someone is bound to trot out the old “immortal” card, and suggest that teenagers think that they’re immortal or something. Well, no offence, but that is bloody stupid. They don’t think they’re immortal at all. They just haven’t considered anything beyond showing off and breaking rules.

And stop keep saying it is just teens. It isn’t. This sort of arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity can manifest itself in anyone of any age. The only teen-specific thing is experience. They’re not as brilliant as they’d like to think, because driving skill – even enough to avoid a major accident whilst breaking the law – only comes with experience.

If you look at the “Timeline of tragedy” box in the link I gave above, the causes of fatal crashes in the same area over the last three years involving teenagers include:

  • 15-year old driving his father’s truck on a learner permit
  • 16-year old doing 65mph in a 35mph zone on a bend
  • 16-year old doing 50mph in a 40mph zone without a seatbelt
  • 16-year old reading a text and doing 52mph in a 45mph zone
  • 18-year old passenger without a seatbelt
  • 16-year old driver and 14-year old passenger doing 85mph
  • 18-year old passenger – 20-year old driver was doing 70mph in a 45mph zone
  • 16-year old passenger – 17-year old driver was doing 60mph and both had been drinking

And this is just a small area of the world. The same thing is happening every day, everywhere.

The article concludes with this:

Why teens crash

Per mile driven, teen drivers are four times more likely than adult drivers to crash. Factors that contribute to teen crashes and injuries include:

  • Driver inexperience: Crash rates are highest during the first year a teen has a license.
  • Driving with teen passengers: Crash risk goes up when teens drive with other teens in the car. The risk increases with each additional passenger.
  • Nighttime driving: For all ages, fatal crashes are more likely to occur at night, but the risk is highest for teens.
  • Not wearing seat belts: Compared with other age groups, teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use.
  • Distracted driving: Distractions — such as talking or texting on cell phones, eating, or playing with the radio — increase teen drivers’ risk of being in a crash.

How long will it be before someone extracts the obvious best solution to the problem from all this?

The Darwin Awards 2011: Competition Hots Up

I love this story on the BBC. Apparently, people visiting Holy Island (the Lindisfarne one) in Northumberland keep ignoring signs warning that the causeway joining the island to the mainland is only passable at low tide.

Warning Sign on CausewayAs you can see, the signs are extremely misleading and could easily be misinterpreted by, say, an orang-utan or perhaps a small dog. But you’d think that those who outwardly resemble humans would understand (even if they are Australian).

Not so. The story reports that an Australian couple were the eighth rescue the Seahouses RNLI crew has had to make this year alone.They were in a hire car, and that has been written off as a result.

The thing is, it’s not just the signs. Unless the locals have a very warped sense of humour, chances are they are telling everyone repeatedly not to venture on to the causeway when the tide is coming in.

A couple of years ago islanders specifically warned a man to leave the island before the tide came in, otherwise he would get stuck.

He pooh-poohed it, saying it was just something to frighten tourists, but half an hour later he was hanging onto the roof of his car and his wife was up to her chest in water, clinging on to their two children.

Imagine that. Someone who wasn’t aware of what tides are all about, visiting a place where access is tide-dependent, thinking he knew better - and being allowed to have kids.

Must be a front runner for this year’s Darwin Award.

Driving Examiner Sickness

This story in the Sunday Mirror reports that driving examiner sick days are costing the taxpayer £500,000 a year.

Just for the record, the number of tests carried out every year is somewhere around 1.8 million. The number of tests cancelled last year was 113,177 (presumably obtained from yet another freedom of information (FOI) muck-raking exercise). That’s less than 6% of all tests booked.

Just doing a bit of scouting around, and there is information suggesting that out of around 1.5 million hospital appointments in Northern Ireland in 2010, 80,000 were cancelled because a consultant wasn’t available. That’s just over 5%. In 2009, the NHS sickness absence level was 4.1% – ranging from 3.4% in London to 4.6% in the North East. Healthcare assistants averaged 6.2%, whereas medical and dental staff averaged 1.1%. Ambulance trusts averaged 5.2%. Strategic health authorities averaged 2.1%.

A look on the Office for National Statistics website shows that national average sickness levels fell from 3.5% in 2000 to 2.5% in 2010. It is obvious that the actual sickness rate for specific professions and jobs varies widely (the NHS ones were those I could find easily).

All you can say is that driving examiners are at the higher end, but nothing dramatic.

The DSA spokeswoman has it right when she says:

Driving tests are ­notoriously stressful for any learner. But this sickness record suggests that even the examiners are feeling the strain.

I also wonder how many tests are cancelled or not attended by the candidates themselves.

Workington Theory Test Centre

This one just won’t go away. I’ve mentioned on three occasions (here, here, and here) that the DSA had planned to close the theory test centre in Workington, and that practical tests were absolutely not affected.

Well, it turns out that another councillor (Eddie Martin) anxious to make a name for himself is threatening judicial proceedings if the DSA doesn’t back down. Well, he doesn’t actually say “back down”, but when you see what he does say it amounts to the same thing:

It’s [a document which says the public has to be consulted before services are moved away] a powerful weapon and will be used if we can’t come to a voluntary agreement.

This is democracy at work. By “voluntary agreement”, he means “what WE want”.

Public consultations are a joke because a large proportion of the public – especially that part which usually wets itself to take part in the things – is not a full shilling. Ask one of them if something – anything – should be moved away and they’ll say “NO”, whether they understand the question or not. But that doesn’t mean, of course, that the proposed change is wrong. All it proves is that certain people will automatically oppose things at public meetings!

The story gets better and more confusing:

Mr Woodburn [actually, that’s Elaine Woodburn of Copeland Council] said: “We have thousands of records that are kept safe. We have Sellafield, one of the most protected structures in Britain so there’s no worry about security.”

Aren’t you glad that national security isn’t her responsibility? Apparently, just because you have a nuclear power station near you then you don’t have any security problems to worry about if you have to keep personal records in your own premises. Great logic, eh?

Elaine Woodburn added: “I’m sick and tired of fighting for services in West Cumbria that everyone else across the country takes for granted.”

More brilliant logic. A library closes down, therefore the DSA is wrong to want to relocate its testing centre. Or a bus service is cut, so that means the DSA shouldn’t attempt to relocate. There truly is a problem with the intellectual capability of some of these councillors.

More than 15 driving instructors attended the meeting…

Hallelujah! The DSA MUST be wrong, then.