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

[MartinC]

The most disappointing aspect of this thread is the lack of analysis in many of the responses. Posters seem to be more interested in rehearsing blame than looking at the context of what happened and what our response should be to help make our (cyclists) environment safer.

First let's recap the facts. Someone lost control of their car killing one cyclist and injuring another. The police investigated and passed the case to the CPS who prosecuted for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. Nothing to complain about there. It went to court and and the driver was acquitted because the court accepted the evidence presented that the woman had suffered a reflex syncope. Many may disagree with the verdict. I, like most here, haven't seen all the evidence but from what I've read this seems like a correct verdict to me. You certainly can't claim any lack of due process. Nor can you claim that if she did suffer the reflex syncope she was legally or morally guilty.

A reflex syncope is when your body mistakenly restricts the blood supply to your brain and you lose consciousness temporarily. Medical opinion is that this will happen to about half of us in our lifetime. You can't predict to who or when. There are other medical conditions that can strike without warning (e.g. heart attack, stroke, epilepsy) and incapacitate you. Smugly assuming that it couldn't happen to me isn't rational. The DVLA have a stringent set of medical criteria that determine when you can drive after any incapacitating attack. They're at http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/ataglance.aspx. They are all about preventing a recurrence but they can't prevent it from happening in the first place. To me they're also a far more sensible read than Joe Bloggs posting from his superficial medical knowledge. If this woman hasn't reported this to the DVLA and been through the process she's open to prosecution.

So we know that drivers can lose consciousness when driving. We have a case where this has happened resulting in a loss of life. We know that whatever we do it may happen again. It's a systemic problem, not a problem caused by driver behaviour. If our reaction to this is "she's an evil witch, burn her" then we let the system off the hook. By personalising it and making it a personal failure we avoid the need for anyone to do anything.

When we respond to this, talking amongst ourselves or too others it seem to me that a more productive approach is to say things like:

"Yes, these things happen, wouldn't it be better if people weren't driving around in a 2 1/2 tonne tanks like this when it did. Maybe we should restrict the use of unnecessarily heavy vehicles like 4x4's."

"Yes, it's appalling that we allow vehicles with really bad NCAP ratings for pedestrian safety like this Range Rover on the road when things like this can happen."

"Yes it just shows how necessary speed limits are so that these things aren't worse. Maybe the limits should be lower in urban areas."

"Yes, maybe our transport system is wrong. If there were more public transport, cycling and walking then there would be less incidents like this and lives would be saved."

If we respond intelligently to events like this the we can help the people and organisations who campaign for improvements like the above.

 

[Crankarm]

The most disappointing aspect of this thread is the lack of analysis in many of the responses. Posters seem to be more interested in rehearsing blame than looking at the context of what happened and what our response should be to help make our (cyclists) environment safer.

First let's recap the facts. Someone lost control of their car killing one cyclist and injuring another. The police investigated and passed the case to the CPS who prosecuted for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. Nothing to complain about there. It went to court and and the driver was acquitted because the court accepted the evidence presented that the woman had suffered a reflex syncope. Many may disagree with the verdict. I, like most here, haven't seen all the evidence but from what I've read this seems like a correct verdict to me. You certainly can't claim any lack of due process. Nor can you claim that if she did suffer the reflex syncope she was legally or morally guilty.

>
>
>
>
>

If we respond intelligently to events like this the we can help the people and organisations who campaign for improvements like the above.

Sorry I said I wasn't going to have a discussion with you but your last post ......................

You seem to beleive you are the only one making intelligent analysis. Well for those that take a contrary view to you were are not dumbells, reactionary or ill informed as you suggest. We may very well have the very same limited information that you are basing your comment on or even slightly more or first had experience of such a terrible collision.

IIRC you mentioned in an earlier thread that you had a brother who had passed out at the end of his road? Well to me that suggests you have an interest and may find it difficult making an objective decision for the safety of all road users that this driver should not be allowed on the road whether because of her dangerous driving or her medical condition.

What ever your criticisms of other posters on here we have on the whole been pretty measured. Ok so her choice of vehicle is poor that's a given and her use of her mobile phone shortly before she crashed would make even a saint blush but these observations and criticisms are valid and don't deserve ridicule by you. I don't recall anyone calling her a "witch" and advocating "she be burned".

If our reaction to this is "she's an evil witch, burn her" then we let the system off the hook

Either you are getting confused with another post on another forum or you have a very vivid imagination......

Someone lost control of their car

Some one did not lose control of their car - they were not in control due to their claimed physical condition

the CPS who prosecuted for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving

No the case was not prosecuted the CPS accepted her new defence of "fainting" and took the view that prosecution would not be in the public interest as they would lose therefore wasting thousands of ££££££ on a full trial as the fainting defence would create sufficient doubt for a jury.

It went to court and and the driver was acquitted because the court

The submissions by the defence, consideration by the CPS and deliberation of the judge would mostly like have been made in a pre-trial hearing not at trial.

You certainly can't claim any lack of due process. Nor can you claim that if she did suffer the reflex syncope she was legally or morally guilty.

The criticism is of her being able to proffer a fainting defence at a late stage and for this to be accepted by CPS thus negating any need for a trial meaning the defendant does not have to appear before a jury and be cross examined.

Medical opinion is that this will happen to about half of us in our lifetime. You can't predict to who or when.

So.......... but did it happen to TJ on this occasion and will it likely re-occur given it is supposed to have happened? Has she previously fainted? Which all have major implications for her retaining her driving license. She has already killed one person and seriously injured another.

You see what I am getting at? Has the defendant actually fainted not an opinion that it may happen to half of us at some point (which I don't beleive anyway) so may well have happened to her? You could invent any scenario in this case that had a 50% chance of occuring which diverted your attention or consciousness from controlling a vehicle.

If our reaction to this is "she's an evil witch, burn her" then we let the system off the hook

So you believe the system is at fault? So we do agree and your thread is a waste of time ?

It's a systemic problem, not a problem caused by driver behaviour.

It may well be both.

When we respond to this, talking amongst ourselves or too others it seem to me that a more productive approach is to say things like:

"Yes, these things happen, wouldn't it be better if people weren't driving around in a 2 1/2 tonne tanks like this when it did. Maybe we should restrict the use of unnecessarily heavy vehicles like 4x4's."

"Yes, it's appalling that we allow vehicles with really bad NCAP ratings for pedestrian safety like this Range Rover on the road when things like this can happen."

"Yes it just shows how necessary speed limits are so that these things aren't worse. Maybe the limits should be lower in urban areas."

"Yes, maybe our transport system is wrong. If there were more public transport, cycling and walking then there would be less incidents like this and lives would be saved."

All peripheral to the case. Surely her driving was either careless, reckless, dangerous or she was unfit for medical reasons?

The other issues you raise about cyclist safety are all laudible and very welcome but in this instance the perspective of the cyclist and other road users appears to have been forgotten.

This woman has avoided a death by dangerous driving prosecution on the grounds that she was not medically fit and SHE STILL RETAINS HER LICENSE. This cannot be right by any stretch of the imagination.

No wonder Mr Corless said he was 'mystified and bewildered' by the explanation and disappointed the case had not gone to trial.

TJ needs to have her license revoked immediately.

The roads aren't safe with her continuing to drive if she has a pre-disposition to fainting/falling asleep/being occupied by something else at the wheel as we have seen.

Are you an apologist for these types of drivers?

 

[J4CKO]

So we are going to tar everybody with the same brush

Yep, I find it works when out on the road, those cars attract a certain type, like double cab pickups, I am sure some of them are lovely people but I give them a wide birth based on the ownership profile.

I think there is too much analysis and creedence give to her "condition" and my gut feel is its all bollocks, someone with no moral fibre getting away with her actions that caused a fatality, its possible she fainted, probably when she found out what she had done.

Cyclists as a group, seem to be a bit to passive and considerate sometimes, looking at all the angles and then getting run over by some selfish **** in a big stupid car who doesnt give a f*ck, who just wants to get away with it.

 

[MartinC]

Crankarm, it's reported (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...laims-she-may-have-fainted-while-driving.html) that the case came to trial, the court heard evidence and the judge dismissed the charges. It's over, it went to trial and the result is an acquittal. You may disagree but complaining will achieve nothing.

The question of medical fitness to drive is covered in the DVLA document. Again you can disagree if you want. They review them every 6 months so if you want to lobby for them to be changed you could see a quick result. I guess you'd need some medical evidence.

To be honest the point you make about brother strikes me as petty. As a rational person and someone who cares for him and his family I've no interest in him driving if he wasn't fit. His incident gives me 2 insights that you seem to lack. One is that these things aren't impossible and may happen to anyone. Secondly I've got some understanding of how the medical side of the DVLA process works. If it's any consolation, in my view, the rules are prescriptive and they apply them rigorously.

The reason for my post was to present an alternative way of responding to this tragic incident. Sorry that you found it boring and irrelevant but at least it provoked enough interest for you to respond.

 

[marinyork]

I already said all that and mangaman did but crankarm didn't listen. The problem is mangaman's well meaning posts make the DVLA process sound a lot more flimsy than it really is and crankarm picks up on this. As do a lot of the tabloid versions.

On the phone one though I think people have a point, she should be given points very much in the HH and Lord Ahmed direction (failed). Things are starting to get a bit silly now in that direction.

 

[classic33]

The most disappointing aspect of this thread is the lack of analysis in many of the responses. Posters seem to be more interested in rehearsing blame than looking at the context of what happened and what our response should be to help make our (cyclists) environment safer.

A reflex syncope is when your body mistakenly restricts the blood supply to your brain and you lose consciousness temporarily. Medical opinion is that this will happen to about half of us in our lifetime. You can't predict to who or when. There are other medical conditions that can strike without warning (e.g. heart attack, stroke, epilepsy) and incapacitate you. Smugly assuming that it couldn't happen to me isn't rational. The DVLA have a stringent set of medical criteria that determine when you can drive after any incapacitating attack. They're at http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/medical/ataglance.aspx. They are all about preventing a recurrence but they can't prevent it from happening in the first place. To me they're also a far more sensible read than Joe Bloggs posting from his superficial medical knowledge. If this woman hasn't reported this to the DVLA and been through the process she's open to prosecution.

Not a "Joe Bloggs" posting from his superficial medical knowledge, but as a person born with & living with epilepsy. I gave the medical response, that has been given to me over the years by experts in their chosen field of medicine, to points raised. In a faint the body goes limp, whilst in a fit the body will tense up.

Don't believe the person who has to live with the condtion look it up. You could try a search on "Tonic-Clonic". Anyone else remember the scene from The Shawshank Redemtion where the closing pressure of a jaw in spasm is given?

[If we respond intelligently to events like this the we can help the people and organisations who campaign for improvements like the above.

Your just as guilty on this as everyone else whose answers you seem to dislike.

 

[Tollers]

Step away from the handbags

 

[classic33]

Step away from the handbags

Not a worry on that one.

But this is something that seems to be getting a bit more commonplace on here. Shout down the person with whom you disagree. And I'm the first to say that I'd be as guilty as the next person doing it.

What is available on here is a vast amount of knowledge from various people in one place.

 

[Crankarm]

Crankarm, it's reported (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...laims-she-may-have-fainted-while-driving.html) that the case came to trial, the court heard evidence and the judge dismissed the charges. It's over, it went to trial and the result is an acquittal. You may disagree but complaining will achieve nothing.

You agree with the decision of the CPS and court - fine, but now you rather mean spiritedly state that complaining will achieve nothing. You really are a nice person.

The question of medical fitness to drive is covered in the DVLA document. Again you can disagree if you want. They review them every 6 months so if you want to lobby for them to be changed you could see a quick result. I guess you'd need some medical evidence.

You still don't answer the main criticism that this woman is still allowed to keep her license despite claiming she fainted at the wheel of her car killing some one and seriously injuring another and drive around as if nothing had happened. Do you think this is sensible or right?

To be honest the point you make about brother strikes me as petty. As a rational person and someone who cares for him and his family I've no interest in him driving if he wasn't fit. His incident gives me 2 insights that you seem to lack.

It's not at all petty. It's a vaild point. You have a brother who I get the impression is dependent on his car for getting around. You have a conflict of interest. Many people manage quite well with out a car either through choice or necessity.

Road safety is paramount IMHO and the courts/DVLA/medical profession need a good kick in the pants to get their houses in order to close loop holes like this preventing drivers who have a history of fainting or claim they have fainted, from ever driving a car again if the cause is not properly identified and treated, and even then with restrictions and proper supervision imposed.

One is that these things aren't impossible and may happen to anyone.

There you go again. But it didn't happen to anyone did it? TJ claimed it happened to her so what medical evidence does she have for it happening to her? Simply lining up a defence of "Oh well, half the population may faint at the wheel of a car, so there is a reasonble likelihood that I could have fainted at the wheel..." in order to get the prosecution to drop the case is outrageous and sets a very dangerous precedent. How many drivers do you think will now, having been involved in serious collisions, now claim "Oh what have I done! I must have passed out!"

Secondly I've got some understanding of how the medical side of the DVLA process works.

Please enlighten us ..........

If it's any consolation, in my view, the rules are prescriptive and they apply them rigorously.

It's not a consolation. The rules maybe prescriptive but they are not applied rigorously enough. It is clear that with the instant case there are loop holes as they do not prevent drivers who pose a real risk to life from driving as Johnson is still driving around having already passed out (if indeed she did) killing one person and seriously injuring another.

The reason for my post was to present an alternative way of responding to this tragic incident. Sorry that you found it boring and irrelevant but at least it provoked enough interest for you to respond.

Actually it wasn't interest that provoked me to respond to your post but your ever so slightly dismissive and belittling attitude implying those who took issue with the outcome of this case as being unintelligent or whinging .

I don't suppose you even find the result of this case unsatisfactory or the fact that the authorities are allowing TJ to still drive around without restriction? I think the Corless family are searching for more substantial answers as to why TJ drove as she did that day and are probably still in shock at the outcome of the case.

Anyway you may or not be aware that due to the public outcry the DVLA are investigating TJ's case. I only hope she doesn't faint again whilst driving her RR Sport if her license is eventually withdrawn as she may well kill or injure a few more people in the mean time. Or maybe she will never ever faint again, ever, in her life, that would be fortuitous and co-incidence.

 

[CopperBrompton]

On the phone one though I think people have a point, she should be given points very much in the HH and Lord Ahmed direction (failed).

Why? There is zero evidence that she was driving at the time she made the phone call.

I don't know about you, but when I need to make a phone call when driving, I pull over somewhere safe to make the call. Once the call is over, I do mirror, signal, maneouvre and am typically driving again within 5-20 seconds of the call ending.

 

[mangaman]

I already said all that and mangaman did but crankarm didn't listen. The problem is mangaman's well meaning posts make the DVLA process sound a lot more flimsy than it really is.QUOTE]

I ggree we've been over this, but I still think the DVLA guidance is recommended by doctors in this area.

If people ignore the DVLA, then there's little, sadly you can do.

I speak as a person who runs a syncope clinic as my job by the way

 

[marinyork]

And I speak as someone who has a relative who has a lifetime ban. As I've said I've known several other people in the same boat.

 

[marinyork]

Why? There is zero evidence that she was driving at the time she made the phone call.

That's not entirely true. We have two bits of evidence that with the best possible interpretation say she was on the phone a couple of minutes before and just after. The point you're missing is the Lord Ahmed case means you can have a serious accident and all you have to do is claim it was just before your accident. Really we need to reverse some of the attitudes so that if you have an accident and there is phone activity around that time you're alarm bells ring very loudly in the same kind of way happens with drink drivers and accidents. Things need tightening up a lot in this respect.

I don't know about you, but when I need to make a phone call when driving, I pull over somewhere safe to make the call. Once the call is over, I do mirror, signal, maneouvre and am typically driving again within 5-20 seconds of the call ending.

I switch my phone off when driving. It might be contrary to HH and Lord Ahmedism but I think this is the way to go. Someone could claim I was chewing my phone but not actually making a call on it unless there was incompetence or tampering with the records.

 

[BentMikey]

Long posts like that will likely never be read by others.

 

[J4CKO]

Did anyone record the actual time the accident happened, the phone records put it at a couple of minutes before, I doubt the two cyclists had much opportunity to check their watches and did the witnesses have coordinated and syncronized timepieces that they had time to check and note the exact time in a pocket book or perchance was it all a bit of a horrific blur and the driver just get away with being on the phone when she killed someone, or did she end her phone call whilst she was driving before the accident, well it would be unfortunate to faint during a good chinwag wouldnt it.

I am sure the legal teams have covered all this but we dont have the transcripts.

I am not a medical person but I diagnose her with "TAV", Truth Aversion Syndrome.