Pensioner knocked cyclist off his bike (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Pensioner knocked cyclist off his bike
12:50pm Saturday 24th November 2012 in Worcester
ACCIDENT: Emergency services at the scene after the police officer was knocked off his bike. Picture by Brian Metcalf.
A PENSIONER who knocked an off-duty police officer off his bike has been given a short-term disqualification from driving.
Magistrates in Worcester heard how David Evans, of Bearswood, Storridge, near Malvern, hit the unnamed officer at the junction of Worcester Road and Howsell Road, Malvern Link, after choosing not to wear his glasses.
The 77-year-old, who was driving a Peugeot 306, was banned for eight weeks following the incident, which happened at about 7pm on Saturday, April 7.
District judge Nigel Cad-bury said cyclists needed to be protected while out on the road and ordered Evans to re-take his test with the threat of a longer ban.
Mr Cadbury said: “You were not in a position to see a cyclist that was clearly there and there to be seen and was seen by the other witnesses who have given us witness statements.
“Your decision not to wear glasses because it was such a short distance completely overestimated your ability to see.”
He said that the officer could easily have been killed rather than just suffering from cuts and bruises.
Lesley Ashton, prosecuting, said the police officer was travelling down the road when he saw a car 10 to 15- metres away in the filter lane before it turned without indicating and hit him, causing him to be thrown into the air.
The officer needed hospital treatment for his injuries.
Ms Ashton said Evans could only read a car’s number plate from 37ft, not the regulation 67ft, when a police officer who attended the scene conducted a roadside eyesight test.
Graham Morgan, defending, described the crash as a momentary lapse and a foolish one which he did not expect to be repeated as it would act as a powerful reminder for Evans to wear his glasses while out on the road.
He said: “The criticism is failing to put his glasses on rather than the way he was driving or a manoeuvre he made. The way in which he drove did not create a danger to the public, simply he was not wearing his glasses.”
Evans was also fined £250 and ordered to pay costs of £60 and a victim surcharge of £15.
Comments(19)
pinkfluff
says...
7:31pm Sat 24 Nov 12
denwood wrote:poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!!
just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.
truth must out
says...
7:37pm Sat 24 Nov 12
Does this include all the cyclists who ride on the pavement, jump red lights, ride without lights at night, ride on the wrong side of the road...!!! I wonder.
The answer is 42
says...
7:55pm Sat 24 Nov 12
get bad drivers OFF the road!
Saturn V
says...
8:20pm Sat 24 Nov 12
truth must out wrote:Yes it does, why wouldn't it?
District judge Nigel Cad-bury said cyclists needed to be protected while out on the road and ordered Evans to re-take his test with the threat of a longer ban.
Does this include all the cyclists who ride on the pavement, jump red lights, ride without lights at night, ride on the wrong side of the road...!!! I wonder.
If he'd hit another car the judge would have said something similar regarding other drivers, that would probably include the ones that consistently speed, drive whilst drunk, have no insurance/MOT, park on the pavements, jump red lights, drive whilst half blind etc.
denwood
says...
8:47pm Sat 24 Nov 12
pinkfluff wrote:the point is pinkfluff!!!!!!!!!!!
denwood wrote:poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!!
just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.
!!!!!!!!! would the old man been treated the same if not a bobby!!! i expect not
Saturn V
says...
9:35pm Sat 24 Nov 12
denwood wrote:Treated so bad by the judge?
pinkfluff wrote:the point is pinkfluff!!!!!!!!!!!
denwood wrote:poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!!
just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.
!!!!!!!!! would the old man been treated the same if not a bobby!!! i expect not
Didn't indicate, cut the corner, couldn"t see #@&%.
Looks like he got off lightly.
If it had been a similar "poor old man" on that bike, he could have been facing a manslaughter charge.
Vox populi
says...
10:11pm Sat 24 Nov 12
denwood wrote:The point is if he was that poor and old he shouldn't be driving...but like most on here you would be calling for the death sentence again if he had been 18!
pinkfluff wrote:the point is pinkfluff!!!!!!!!!!!
denwood wrote:poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!!
just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.
!!!!!!!!! would the old man been treated the same if not a bobby!!! i expect not
His age has nothing to do with the poor driving, in fact you could say he should know better at his age :-)
chapski75
says...
12:35pm Sun 25 Nov 12
It'll be interesting to see if the driver passes his re-test. It'll be a bit different from the test he'll have passed so many years ago.
The one thing that is worrying is that the incident happened in April and he's only now being served his ban. So that's 7 months of this man putting even more lives at risk.
jb
says...
8:53pm Sun 25 Nov 12
He said: “The criticism is failing to put his glasses on rather than the way he was driving or a manoeuvre he made. The way in which he drove did not create a danger to the public, simply he was not wearing his glasses.”
'critisitsm'? Doesn't he mean the 'offence' , let's hope this defence solicitor never encounters and elderly, inconsiderate, selfish driver.
jb
says...
8:53pm Sun 25 Nov 12
He said: “The criticism is failing to put his glasses on rather than the way he was driving or a manoeuvre he made. The way in which he drove did not create a danger to the public, simply he was not wearing his glasses.”
'critisitsm'? Doesn't he mean the 'offence' , let's hope this defence solicitor never encounters and elderly, inconsiderate, selfish driver.
Respectable
says...
8:43am Tue 27 Nov 12
MakeUthink
says...
6:10pm Tue 27 Nov 12
MakeUthink
says...
6:10pm Tue 27 Nov 12
imustbeoldiwearacap
says...
10:27pm Tue 27 Nov 12
Biggles
says...
12:06am Wed 28 Nov 12
.
I have taught quite a few elderly people advanced driving, a few of them would have been reffered to as doddering old so & so's on here.
.
He made a jolly bad decision by not wearing his glasses, thankfully the cyclist survived, lets hope the driver passes his re-test, (so he can continue with his retirement).
.
I see no connection with the sentance and the cyclists occupation.
MrWXYZ
says...
11:53am Fri 30 Nov 12
Why just retest over 60s?
How many times do you read of a pensioner driving the wrong way on a mway. Not many, and certainly not as many as you read of younger drivers killing people through dangerous driving.
Some drive around at 15mph and think they are safe. They possibly are unless its a mway or open national speed limit road! Overtake them when safe if you think its safer to go quicker.
chapski75
says...
12:08pm Fri 30 Nov 12
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:Age goup 17-24 = youthful exuberrance in abundance, talent and experience in scarce supply.
I think all those contibutors who critisise the older driver should examine the facts - young drivers (17-24) cause more deaths on the road than all other divers added together, those in the age group 25 - 34 cause more deaths than the age group 35 - 65+. And those in the age group 35 - 49 cause just as many deaths as those 65+. And why do insurance companies reduce premiums the older you get? Oh! the safest drivers 50 - 65!
25-34 and 35-49 are the working majority, so do the most miles. 50-65 and 65+ in particular will do fewer miles.
If you weight the accidents by the number of miles driven you'll see a whole different picture. But then statistics can tell you anything you want them to.
MrWXYZ if you think it's safer to go faster than 15mph, overtake them? That's not the point I was making. Yes it's frustrating to be stuck behind them and that causes a risk in itself. The fact is that reaction times equate to a distance. So at 30mph a car takes 45feet to stop, 15feet of that is reaction time. If a driver's reaction times are slower, either by age or vision problems, that time can be the difference between a near miss and a fatal accident.
MrWXYZ
says...
3:45pm Fri 30 Nov 12
If you want to argue old people be taken off the road for that alone then the same could be said for stupid drivers who take longer to react or put themselves in positions that need more time. Just seems to be an excuse by some for old people bashing
denwood says...
6:11pm Sat 24 Nov 12