Pensioner knocked cyclist off his bike

ACCIDENT: Emergency services at the scene after the police officer was knocked off his bike. Picture by Brian Metcalf.

ACCIDENT: Emergency services at the scene after the police officer was knocked off his bike. Picture by Brian Metcalf.

First published in Worcester

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)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:11pm Sat 24 Nov 12

denwood says...

just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.
just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke. denwood
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Sat 24 Nov 12

pinkfluff says...

denwood wrote:
just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.
poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!!
[quote][p][bold]denwood[/bold] wrote: just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.[/p][/quote]poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!! pinkfluff
  • Score: 0

7:37pm Sat 24 Nov 12

truth must out says...

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.
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. truth must out
  • Score: 0

7:55pm Sat 24 Nov 12

The answer is 42 says...

Incredibly lenient sentance considering the potential results of his decision. Anyone who drives in a way that does or could, injure or kill another road user should be banned automatically. How long before judges realise that the consequences of driving a motor vehicle badly can cause untold grief to others.
get bad drivers OFF the road!
Incredibly lenient sentance considering the potential results of his decision. Anyone who drives in a way that does or could, injure or kill another road user should be banned automatically. How long before judges realise that the consequences of driving a motor vehicle badly can cause untold grief to others. get bad drivers OFF the road! The answer is 42
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Saturn V says...

truth must out wrote:
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.
Yes it does, why wouldn't it?
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.
[quote][p][bold]truth must out[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]Yes it does, why wouldn't it? 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. Saturn V
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Sat 24 Nov 12

denwood says...

pinkfluff wrote:
denwood wrote:
just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.
poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!!
the point is pinkfluff!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!! would the old man been treated the same if not a bobby!!! i expect not
[quote][p][bold]pinkfluff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]denwood[/bold] wrote: just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.[/p][/quote]poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!![/p][/quote]the point is pinkfluff!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! would the old man been treated the same if not a bobby!!! i expect not denwood
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Saturn V says...

denwood wrote:
pinkfluff wrote:
denwood wrote:
just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.
poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!!
the point is pinkfluff!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!! would the old man been treated the same if not a bobby!!! i expect not
Treated so bad by the judge?
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.
[quote][p][bold]denwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pinkfluff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]denwood[/bold] wrote: just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.[/p][/quote]poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!![/p][/quote]the point is pinkfluff!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! would the old man been treated the same if not a bobby!!! i expect not[/p][/quote]Treated so bad by the judge? 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. Saturn V
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Vox populi says...

denwood wrote:
pinkfluff wrote:
denwood wrote:
just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.
poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!!
the point is pinkfluff!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!! would the old man been treated the same if not a bobby!!! i expect not
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!

His age has nothing to do with the poor driving, in fact you could say he should know better at his age :-)
[quote][p][bold]denwood[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pinkfluff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]denwood[/bold] wrote: just because its a pc plod the poor old man gets treated so bad by the judge. joke.[/p][/quote]poor old man??? He drove without his specs and could have killed him!![/p][/quote]the point is pinkfluff!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! would the old man been treated the same if not a bobby!!! i expect not[/p][/quote]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! His age has nothing to do with the poor driving, in fact you could say he should know better at his age :-) Vox populi
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Sun 25 Nov 12

chapski75 says...

Poor driving by elderly drivers is seen all too frequently. The fact that they're only doing about 15mph everywhere is the only reason there are fewer serious accidents.
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.
Poor driving by elderly drivers is seen all too frequently. The fact that they're only doing about 15mph everywhere is the only reason there are fewer serious accidents. 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. chapski75
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Sun 25 Nov 12

jb says...

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.”

'critisitsm'? Doesn't he mean the 'offence' , let's hope this defence solicitor never encounters and elderly, inconsiderate, selfish driver.
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.” 'critisitsm'? Doesn't he mean the 'offence' , let's hope this defence solicitor never encounters and elderly, inconsiderate, selfish driver. jb
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Sun 25 Nov 12

jb says...

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.”

'critisitsm'? Doesn't he mean the 'offence' , let's hope this defence solicitor never encounters and elderly, inconsiderate, selfish driver.
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.” 'critisitsm'? Doesn't he mean the 'offence' , let's hope this defence solicitor never encounters and elderly, inconsiderate, selfish driver. jb
  • Score: 0

8:43am Tue 27 Nov 12

Respectable says...

Think we need to remember that the Off Duty PC is probably someone's Husband / Son / Father / Best Mate etc etc and a person who serves the community dealing with the low life scum of our society that would then be the first ones to pick up the phone if anyone wronged them. Bloody hell lets have a bit of compasion. The bloke was our riding a push bike minding his own business.
Think we need to remember that the Off Duty PC is probably someone's Husband / Son / Father / Best Mate etc etc and a person who serves the community dealing with the low life scum of our society that would then be the first ones to pick up the phone if anyone wronged them. Bloody hell lets have a bit of compasion. The bloke was our riding a push bike minding his own business. Respectable
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Tue 27 Nov 12

MakeUthink says...

Same old, same old. It's time all drivers were re-tested every 5 years after age 60, and every time a full medical (reaction time, eyesight, etc) carried out, too. Any aspect that is failed puts them off the road. How many times do we read of a pensioner driving the WRONG way on a motorway! Some of them drive around (as Chapski 75 says) at about 15 mph, and they think they're safe! The law needs changing and it needs changing now. BTW, It is an offence for anyone who wears prescription glasses, to drive (or ride a m'bike) without them, for obvious reasons.
Same old, same old. It's time all drivers were re-tested every 5 years after age 60, and every time a full medical (reaction time, eyesight, etc) carried out, too. Any aspect that is failed puts them off the road. How many times do we read of a pensioner driving the WRONG way on a motorway! Some of them drive around (as Chapski 75 says) at about 15 mph, and they think they're safe! The law needs changing and it needs changing now. BTW, It is an offence for anyone who wears prescription glasses, to drive (or ride a m'bike) without them, for obvious reasons. MakeUthink
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Tue 27 Nov 12

MakeUthink says...

Same old, same old. It's time all drivers were re-tested every 5 years after age 60, and every time a full medical (reaction time, eyesight, etc) carried out, too. Any aspect that is failed puts them off the road. How many times do we read of a pensioner driving the WRONG way on a motorway! Some of them drive around (as Chapski 75 says) at about 15 mph, and they think they're safe! The law needs changing and it needs changing now. BTW, It is an offence for anyone who wears prescription glasses, to drive (or ride a m'bike) without them, for obvious reasons.
Same old, same old. It's time all drivers were re-tested every 5 years after age 60, and every time a full medical (reaction time, eyesight, etc) carried out, too. Any aspect that is failed puts them off the road. How many times do we read of a pensioner driving the WRONG way on a motorway! Some of them drive around (as Chapski 75 says) at about 15 mph, and they think they're safe! The law needs changing and it needs changing now. BTW, It is an offence for anyone who wears prescription glasses, to drive (or ride a m'bike) without them, for obvious reasons. MakeUthink
  • Score: 0

10:27pm Tue 27 Nov 12

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

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!
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! imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 0

12:06am Wed 28 Nov 12

Biggles says...

Drivers will never be retested, we just don't have the infrastructure for it, no matter how desirable, or noble the suggestion is.
.
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.
Drivers will never be retested, we just don't have the infrastructure for it, no matter how desirable, or noble the suggestion is. . 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. Biggles
  • Score: 0

11:53am Fri 30 Nov 12

MrWXYZ says...

madeuthink the actual offence relates to the distance you can see in good lighting conditions........ as said in the article. Thats not to defend him as he shouldnt been driving without his glasses, but you seem a bit high and mighty to be misquoting the law.

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.
madeuthink the actual offence relates to the distance you can see in good lighting conditions........ as said in the article. Thats not to defend him as he shouldnt been driving without his glasses, but you seem a bit high and mighty to be misquoting the law. 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. MrWXYZ
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Fri 30 Nov 12

chapski75 says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
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!
Age goup 17-24 = youthful exuberrance in abundance, talent and experience in scarce supply.
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.
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: 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![/p][/quote]Age goup 17-24 = youthful exuberrance in abundance, talent and experience in scarce supply. 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. chapski75
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Fri 30 Nov 12

MrWXYZ says...

True, but theres a hole host of factors into that one. Speed, distance to vehicle infront, age, vision, tiredness, alcohol, drugs, other distractions, persons ability to anticipate, each individuals reactions etc.
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
True, but theres a hole host of factors into that one. Speed, distance to vehicle infront, age, vision, tiredness, alcohol, drugs, other distractions, persons ability to anticipate, each individuals reactions etc. 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 MrWXYZ
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree