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?