A recent fatal bike crash case that may be of interest

[T.C.]

People often ask me how the Courts determine what is an appropriate punishment or period of disqualification as a result of being convicted for example after a crash, especially in a fatal

Well such a case has just been heard at the RCJ on appeal, which I thought you might find interesting.

R v MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER BAGSHAWE (2013)

It was not inappropriate for a judge to sentence an offender to three years' disqualification from driving for causing death by careless driving where the offence did not fall within the lowest category of the relevant sentencing guidelines.

The appellant (B) appealed against a three-year disqualification from driving following his plea of guilty to causing death by careless driving.

B had been driving his car on a carriageway when he pulled out across a motorcyclist (V). V was thrown from his bike and died at the scene. B was 85 at the time of the accident. Before sentencing, the judge mentioned that he had sought to advise his own parents about driving when they were elderly. When sentencing he stated that it was because of B's inadvertence that he had not seen V.

He concluded that the offence fell within the middle category, category 2, of the relevant sentencing guidelines, and that the minimum disqualification period of one year was not sufficient in circumstances where a man had died.

He sentenced B to a 12-month community order comprising a 150-hour unpaid work requirement and disqualified him from driving for three years.

B submitted that the judge (1) unfairly took into account his age when sentencing; (2) erred in saying that the minimum one-year disqualification period was insufficient as Parliament had determined that the minimum period was sufficient in cases involving death by careless driving; (3) was unfair to impose a sentence that was three times the minimum period.

HELD: (1) In mentioning the advice he himself had given, the judge was simply making a helpful and friendly observation. He did not take B's age into account when sentencing. (2) It was important to have regard to the judge's wording as he had said the minimum period was not sufficient "in a case such as this". He had found that the offence fell in the middle category of the sentencing guidelines because of B's culpability, and in those circumstances the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that he had. (3) The sentencing guidelines made it clear that a one-year disqualification was the minimum that could be imposed, not that it was the normal or standard period that would be imposed.

Disqualification from driving had a dual role: it was a penalty as well as a preventative measure. The judge was fully entitled to decide that a three-year disqualification was appropriate.

Appeal dismissed

[Aladinsaneuk]

Good

[fatboy]

Im sure many would say that's still lenient

[BikerGran]

The mere fact that an 85 year old who killed someone with his car appealed against the length of the ban makes a good case for him losing his licence permanently, in my book!

Does he have to re-take his test?

[D-Rider]

The mere fact that an 85 year old who killed someone with his car appealed against the length of the ban makes a good case for him losing his licence permanently, in my book!

Does he have to re-take his test?

Doubt he'll re-apply at 88 and if he does I imagine his insurance would be through the roof - no NCD, no recent driving experience + recent fatal accident.

Almost certainly his driving days are done.

[GregD-UK]

Hi all,

One would of thought that at 85yrs old he didn't see a motorcycle would raise concern for the review of his fitness to drive anyway! The fact that he also caused the death of someone, would of I thought gave the guy just cause to hand his license in. The fact that he wanted to appeal the three year ban, show's to me he felt that just a ban and some work, was too much for killing someone, he obviously is a cantankerous old guy. I know the law has guidelines, but, the judge tried to make it that he wouldn't drive again hopefully.....

Have come across a few people who in my travels, should have their license ripped up! Hope this case, sets a precedence to raise the punishment for similar cases.

[Gio]

Personally I'd like to see everyone over the age of 75 not being able to hold a licence, most are incapable by then anyway.

He should have gone to prison as well manslaughter.

[slickliner6]

IMO

everyone over the age of 65 should be sight and hearing tested.......

[BikerGran]

IMO

everyone over the age of 65 should be sight and hearing tested.......

People vary enormously in their capacity to drive including vision and reaction time, as they get older. I've know known some who are not fir to drive at 60, others who are perfectly safe at 90 because they've retained the intelligence to judge how far and in what conditions they can safely drive.

I do agree that it would be a good thing to have to have eye tests - not just over 65 but for everyone who wants a licence!

[slickliner6]

IMO

everyone over the age of 65 should be sight and hearing tested.......

People vary enormously in their capacity to drive including vision and reaction time, as they get older. I've know known some who are not fir to drive at 60, others who are perfectly safe at 90 because they've retained the intelligence to judge how far and in what conditions they can safely drive.

I do agree that it would be a good thing to have to have eye tests - not just over 65 but for everyone who wants a licence!

agreed.

but maybe annuly for for the elderly ?

[snapdragon]

IMO

everyone over the age of 65 should be sight and hearing tested.......

40 is the age at which eyesight can start to deteriorate with age, so regular eye test with results reported to the DVLA should be compulsary from then onwards IMO

[D-Rider]

........ and when we talk of eye tests, lets forget this silly reading at a distance test and replace it with an OBSERVATION test.
20:20 vision is of no benefit if people are not observant - in fact the level of eyesight alone is far less important than how good people are at spotting things and adopting the right strategies to react to them.

... and while we're ranting about eyesight and age, let's forget the age - when I was knocked off my son's bike a few years ago, the chap that hit me was not old but had no sight in his left eye (the side from which I was approaching the junction). My view is that he didn't see me for two reasons - his impaired eyesight coupled with poor observation in that he didn't compensate for his deficiency.

[fatboy]

D-Rider,interesting point.
How can DVLA justify different sight fitness levels for different vehicles ?
As you say, the guy hit you off from the left and had no sight in his left eye,so howcome he is fit and able ( in DVLA's opinion ) to ride a bike,drive a car or van but would be unfit to drive 7.5 tonne or HGV ???
We have a guy at work that was refused an HGV because of a scratch to his right cornea BUT can still drive 7.5 tonne
A sight defficiency stays with the driver regardless of what he or she may be driving

[lazarus]

IMO

everyone over the age of 65 should be sight and hearing tested.......

Not a bad idea but given that most fatalities are the result of accidents involving the young not the old, I reckon people should not be able to ride a bike until aged 35 at least. By that age they can be assumed to have become a bit more sensible - something they definitely arent at 20.

[mangocrazy]

IMO

everyone over the age of 65 should be sight and hearing tested.......

Not a bad idea but given that most fatalities are the result of accidents involving the young not the old, I reckon people should not be able to ride a bike until aged 35 at least. By that age they can be assumed to have become a bit more sensible - something they definitely arent at 20.

I can't believe you're serious about this - are you?

The biggest problem motorcycling has at the moment is replacing the older generation like us with new riders. Ban them from riding until they're 35 and motorcycling in the UK would be dead within a generation.

And it's perfectly OK for kids to drive cars and not just kill themselves, but their mates and anyone else they happen to collide with? At least with motorcycles the pieces of out of control metal are a lot smaller and any mortalities generally only affect the rider. It's to be deplored, but the collateral damage is much smaller with a motorcycle.

I really don't think you've thought that remark through.