So it is OK to faint while driving .....

[Crankarm]

Here is the story of another cyclist killed by a 4x4 driver. On this occasion it was a Mitsubishi Shogan, co-incidentally happening about the same time as the death of Sharon Corless, in September 2008.

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/2449494.0/?act=complaint&cid=1911601

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Are these times call times ie times actually on calls? A mobile phone can still used even if a call isn't being made.

Does a mobile actually record when it is being operated but NOT necessarily when it's being used to make a call or sending a text to some one? She could have been merely sorting through her messages/texts, but not necessarily sending a text or chatting to any one thus it may not record this as no call was being made or text being sent ?

If this is the case and she had made a call whilst driving then finished this but continued to use her phone sorting through her messages/address book then she may well have still been concentrating on it and not on the road ahead. There may have been a serious miscarriage of justice if this is the case and I believe a perverting of the cause of justice. She simply did not see the cyclists and the changing road layout and conditions ahead as she was looking and concentrating on her mobile, perhaps composing a text, which when she subsequently came to a halt and began to realise what she had done, she deleted. Would the phone necessarily record this latter type of usage? Could it be established whether the phone was on or not ie when you call a mobile phone that is off, you get a message saying the phone is off, leave a message or call later. Surely the phone network provider would confirm whether her phone was actually on or off, in addition to call times and frequencies, am I right?

That's all well and good. As long as you bear in mind that you've made it all up, with very little justification, that's fine.
It's certainly possible that she could have just blacked out behind the wheel. It happens, often with no warning whatever. I know of at least one lorry driver it's happened to.

 

[mangaman]

Tragic story and not clear from the Mail that we have the whole story, but the law on driving is clear (see DVLA website)

Legally if you faint at the wheel you have to inform the DVLA and stop driving.

It's not clear why the doctor in this case says she may have fainted or if she's been through medical tests that suggest this.

If you faint behind the wheel and a cause is found and treated you can legally drive again after 4 weeks.

If no cause is found you may be able to drive after 6 months.

It's legally up to the driver to inform the DVLA and up to the DVLA exactly how long the licence should be revoked

 

[Crankarm]

That's all well and good. As long as you bear in mind that you've made it all up, with very little justification, that's fine.
It's certainly possible that she could have just blacked out behind the wheel. It happens, often with no warning whatever. I know of at least one lorry driver it's happened to.

And you haven't RT ................... made it all up based purely on anecdotal evidence .

Just one lorry driver eh. I thought you were going to refer us to a learned and trusted body of medical research highlighting numerous cases.

I wonder if the medical opinion that was provided was supported by evidence from her GP or a local specialist showing a history of fainting? Or alternatively the opinion came from a "specialist" on a list of "specialists" defence solicitors use? It would seem awful co-incidence for the Corless family if this woman has never fainted before and never faints again in her life and so gets her driving license back after one month or some similarly short time .

 

[magnatom]

I think we need to remember that this is a Daily Mail report. Accuracy is not its forte... Also we do not know the medical evidence which, for all we know, may strongly indicate that she had fainted. Also we do not know if she did stop driving following the incident or not. She may well have, and the DVLA may well have suspended her licence for a time.

Of course discussion of incidents like this are important, but we have to remember that we don't have all the facts upon which to base our assertions.

Terrible tragedy of course.

 

[Crankarm]

Tragic story and not clear from the Mail that we have the whole story, but the law on driving is clear (see DVLA website)

Legally if you faint at the wheel you have to inform the DVLA and stop driving.

It's not clear why the doctor in this case says she may have fainted or if she's been through medical tests that suggest this.

If you faint behind the wheel and a cause is found and treated you can legally drive again after 4 weeks.

If no cause is found you may be able to drive after 6 months.

It's legally up to the driver to inform the DVLA and up to the DVLA exactly how long the licence should be revoked

I would think there would be an awful lot of people contacting DVLA regarding the fitness of Johnson to drive....... Don't DVLA officials read the DM? Or would the CPS/Cheshire Police have automatically informed them?

 

[Crankarm]

I think we need to remember that this is a Daily Mail report. Accuracy is not its forte... Also we do not know the medical evidence which, for all we know, may strongly indicate that she had fainted. Also we do not know if she did stop driving following the incident or not. She may well have, and the DVLA may well have suspended her licence for a time.

Of course discussion of incidents like this are important, but we have to remember that we don't have all the facts upon which to base our assertions.

Terrible tragedy of course.

Magna the DM comes in for a lot of criticism and rightly so for many of it's articles, but on this one it is the only National newspaper carrying the story AFAICF and on the face of it it's reporting seems no different from how any other newspaper would report such a case had they chosen to do so. If anything it has been more restrained than usual so I think the gibes at the DM are unjustified on this occasion. It is after all an horrific case involving 2 cyclists - one killed and the other seriously injured, another car whose occupants were also in collision with the RR and a lamp post.

If it wasn't for the DM this case may have disappeared into the ether.

 

[magnatom]

Magna the DM comes in for a lot of criticism and rightly so for many of it's articles, but on this one it is the only National newspaper carrying the story AFAICF and on the face of it it's reporting seems no different from how any other newspaper would report such a case had they chosen to do so. If anything it has been more restrained than usual so I think the gibes at the DM are unjustified on this occasion. It is after all an horrific case involving 2 cyclists - one killed and the other seriously injured, another car and whose occupants were also in collision with the RR and a lamp post.

If it wasn't for the DM this case may have disappeared into the ether.

No jibes, just suggesting that we need to exercise caution. Would you agree that we don't have all of the facts, and, that it is possible that the case for fainting could be strong? Certainly strong enough to introduce the required doubt?

 

[Crankarm]

No jibes, just suggesting that we need to exercise caution. Would you agree that we don't have all of the facts, and, that it is possible that the case for fainting could be strong? Certainly strong enough to introduce the required doubt?

And I refer you to my initial comments above. Of course you are not the sort of person not to read a whole thread before you comment .

Indeed it is bizarre and horrific chain of events. She may have fainted as one alternative. But also bear in mind she was facing some pretty serious charges and possibly a spell in prison so it maybe in her interests to try to avoid this. We have an adversial legal system. The CPS have decided not to put the case before a court as they think her medical evidence will create enough doubt to make a guilty verdict unlikely.

However, I re-iterate, it would seem an awful co-incidence for the Corless family if this woman has never fainted before and never faints again in her life and avoids a causing death by dangerous driving prosecution and so gets her driving license back after one month or some similarly short time if it has actually been suspended.

 

[Crankarm]

Maybe the rules or laws for drivers who black out/faint at the wheel should be changed so as they cannot get back behind the wheel so easily or cannot drive unaccompanied.

 

[MartinC]

This is what I posted on the the CTC forum in response to the newspaper article. It bears repeating here.

"My brother had a similar incident a year or so again. No damage to anyone or his car - he just stopped at the end of his road. He had a series of neurological exams (without any conclusion - just elimination of the possible causes) and it was months before he was allowed to drive again.

Given that the police were involved at the outset of this case it's extremely likely that this woman has been through the same process. On the face of it then it seems likely that it's a genuine case - there will have been proper medical examination and the reported facts of the incident (e.g. no brake lights) are consistent.

So it's not that easy a loophole to go through. We all feel desperately for the family of the person killed. Knee jerk condemnation isn't appropriate. Bear in mind too that if you read the article properly you'll understand that there is a 1 in 2 chance that you'll have a reflex syncope at some time. Hopefully it'll be in a situation that doesn't hurt you or anybody else.

Driving is a dangerous activity that carries risk and we should do all we can to minimise or remove it. Unfortunately it's hard to see what could have been done in this case."

 

[magnatom]

And I refer you to my initial comments above. Of course you are not the sort of person not to read a whole thread before you comment .

Oh I am when when the posts are a little too detailed and ranty...

 

[Amanda P]

I'd like to see automatic bans for anyone caught using a handheld mobile whilst driving. Given the risk of being caught is so low the penalty if a driver is caught needs to hurt and £60 and 3 pts doesn't.

A point I've been banging on about for years.

 

[Crankarm]

This is what I posted on the the CTC forum in response to the newspaper article. It bears repeating here.

"My brother had a similar incident a year or so again. No damage to anyone or his car - he just stopped at the end of his road. He had a series of neurological exams (without any conclusion - just elimination of the possible causes) and it was months before he was allowed to drive again.

Given that the police were involved at the outset of this case it's extremely likely that this woman has been through the same process. On the face of it then it seems likely that it's a genuine case - there will have been proper medical examination and the reported facts of the incident (e.g. no brake lights) are consistent.

So it's not that easy a loophole to go through. We all feel desperately for the family of the person killed. Knee jerk condemnation isn't appropriate. Bear in mind too that if you read the article properly you'll understand that there is a 1 in 2 chance that you'll have a reflex syncope at some time. Hopefully it'll be in a situation that doesn't hurt you or anybody else.

Driving is a dangerous activity that carries risk and we should do all we can to minimise or remove it. Unfortunately it's hard to see what could have been done in this case."

Has there been any knee jerk condemnation other than for her poor choice of vehicle?

What medical research puts the chances of having such a black out as 1 in 2? Surely this cannot be correct as we would see many more collisions of this nature if this was true?

Driving is a lawful activity which becomes unlawful when done negligently, carelessly, recklessly or dangerously.

 

[MartinC]

Has there been any knee jerk condemnation other than for her poor choice of vehicle?

What medical research puts the chances of having such a black out as 1 in 2? Surely this cannot be correct as we would see many more collisions of this nature if this was true?

Driving is a lawful activity which becomes unlawful when done negligently, carelessly, recklessly or dangerously.

I think people expressing displeasure at the acquittal and lack of penalties counts as condemnation, so yes.

The quoted article contains "It is a common condition and occurs in roughly half of all individuals during their lives.". The DM doesn't source that but it seems consistent with what the neurologists told my brother. Your extrapolation from this to a number of expected collisions needs a bit more work e.g how many are there and how many should there be for a start.

If you think having a reflex syncope while driving is negligent, careless, reckless or dangerous then explain to me how you're going to prevent it happening to yourself.