Sunday 30 January 2011

Not Quite, ‘Telegraph’, Not Quite…

The driver of a mobility scooter who killed a 90-year old pedestrian escaped prosecution because no law existed to enable police to take action, an inquest heard.
Well, it’s true that the law proved inadequate for this case.

But there’s actually another reason why he ‘escaped’ prosecution:
The inquest was told Mrs Macey sustained serious leg injuries after being hit as she stepped onto the pavement after crossing the road on July 21 2009.

Mrs Macey was rushed to nearby St Mary's Hospital, in Newport, and was then transferred to Salisbury District Hospital where she died two days later.

Recording a verdict of accidental death, the coroner condemned the behaviour Mr Cousins, who died of prostate cancer in September 2009.
That’s right. He himself died two months later!

Hardly enough time to mount a prosecution if the law had allowed it…
Blood was seen gushing from her leg and her bone was exposed, witnesses said. But Mr Cousins, who was known locally as a "scooter menace" drove off at 4mph, after remarking 'It looks like she's OK."

He was later found shopping at a Somerfield supermarket, where he was breathalysed after a member of the public said they believed he had been drinking.

Mr Cousins registered a reading of 27 micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath, below the legal limit of 35.
However, while his goose would have been cooked if he’d been behind the wheel of a car or a motorbike and was over the limit, he wasn’t. Either over the limit, or behind the wheel of a car.

And so could not be charged anyway.
But police, who investigated the accident at Sandown, Isle of Wight, found that they were unable to bring charges against Mr Cousins under the Road Traffic Act.
Naturally, people are now calling for the laws on drink-driving to be beefed up and extended to…

Oh. Wait. They aren’t.
The gap in the law angered John Matthews, the Isle of Wight Coroner. "I'm extremely concerned that there is no control or legislation affecting the driving of invalid carriages or scooters.

"It is surprising because there are so many controls affecting us in other areas of our lives," he said.
And you think that’s such a great thing, that you want another one?!?
"I'm so concerned that I intend to write to the local MP and Secretary of State for Transport so that some control may be brought in for the protection of pedestrians on the pavements."
Surely just ensuring that the drink-driving laws cover these vehicles (where people are actually over the limit - remember, this man wasn't..) would be appropriate and proportionate?

It seems not:
After the inquest Mrs Macey's son Martin, 55, who works at Gatwick Airport, called for a change in the law.

He said: "Mum's death was shocking.

"I don't want it to happen to anybody else and we need a change in the law which forces people to pass a proficiency test and be covered by insurance."
No. No, we do not.

Why punish all those people who use these vehicles to get around, make them take a test and get insurance (which could push the cost beyond affordability for many), for an instance that may never have been prevented by the changes you think you want anyway?

After all, we have proficiency tests and compulsory insurance with cars, yet people are still killed by those determined to flout the law.

All you would do is further enrich the likes of Richard Boyd. And make everyone’s lives just that little bit less free.

Not much of a memorial for your mother, is it?

9 comments:

KenS said...

Why punish all those people who use these vehicles to get around, make them take a test and get insurance .... After all, we have proficiency tests and compulsory insurance with cars, yet people are still killed by those determined to flout the law.

So, would you argue to do away with car driving tests and car insurance?

ivan said...

In reply to KenS - Yes. Just make it the personal responsibility of the driver - you make a mistake, you pay. If you want to take out insurance to cover yourself do so but don't make it compulsory.

Also the driving test does not prove you are a good driver, just that you can pass tests.

The King of Wrong said...

And there was me thinking that killing someone with anything was a crime!

What, manslaughter doesn't apply to scooters? Leaving someone with the bone sticking out of their leg isn't GBH? Hitting anyone with anything isn't assault and battery?

Curmudgeon said...

If the drink-driving law is extended to cover mobility scooters, then surely it should be extended to cover pedal cycles too... (ducks)

microdave said...

"That there is no control or legislation affecting the driving of invalid carriages or scooters."

So how come the driving (riding?) of Segways was recently banned on pavements & roads? If they are classed as "Motor Vehicles" then so should mobility scooters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/8267312/Segways-banned-from-pavements-and-roads-as-rider-fined-75.html

Anonymous said...

@ivan

Personal responsibility? In this day and age? Rather a radical suggestion!

Not that I disagree with you, but I can't see the idea catching on!

JuliaM said...

"So, would you argue to do away with car driving tests and car insurance?"

Not now, no. We've gone too far down that road, if you'll pardon the pun.

Also, there are far, far more cars (heavier and travelling faster) than these electric buggies.

"What, manslaughter doesn't apply to scooters? "

It appears not.

"...then surely it should be extended to cover pedal cycles too..."

Oh oh! :)

"So how come the driving (riding?) of Segways was recently banned on pavements & roads?"

Yes, I pondered on that too. It seems illogical in the extreme.

Anonymouslemming said...

That tells me more about how some of the stupidity at Gatwick happens at least.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

The Righteous have been desperate to get these scooters hemmed in with regulations for a while now.

This is just the latest example.

I am sure they're pushing at an open door where the government is concerned - expect some "crackdown" at a televisually convenient moment, or perhaps when some economic disaster needs sweeping under the carpet.