Grandmother who hit cyclists loses licence

John Pitts

This is in relation to the crash which occurred in Newcastle a year ago.
The driver went straight through a tee intersection at the bottom of a
long steep hill, right into the bunch riding across on the other side of
the road. Several cyclists were severely injured.


From the Newcastle Morning Herald (I can't find this article online):

Driver fined over crash
by Donna Sharpe

A magistrate has described as "tragic" the case against a
75-year-old Belmont North woman who drove into a group of cyclists
last December, severely injuring four of them.

<stuff about this week's accident elided>

Sentencing [Genita] Radnidge in Belmont Local Court yesterday,
magistrate Michael Morahan said this was one of the most tragic
cases in which an elderly person should not have been driving.

"Some elderly people think it is their God-given right to drive,
irrespective of anything," he said.

Looking frail and using a walking stick, Radnidge faced the
court flanked by family, including her daughter.

She was charged with negligent driving causing grievous bodily harm
at Eleebana on December 23, last year.

Mr Morahan told the court the offence carried a jail term. He fined
Radnidge $1000, disqualified her from driving for five years and
said he would recommend to the Roads and Traffic Authority that she
never again be issued with a driver's licence.

The court had previously heard the grandmother drove into the
cyclists on Tingira Road between 7.05am and 7.14am.

Cyclists Noel Davies, of Belmont, Michael Scott, of Valentine, David
Benn, of Marks Point and Steven O'Mara, of Tamworth, were injured in
the accident.

Defence barrister Peter Harper told the court his client had a clean
record and had no recollection of the accident.

"This is a most tragic situation and she has the most heartfelt
remorse in terms of care and concern for the victims," Mr Harper
said.

"She is reduced to tears on a daily basis and the nightmares
continue during the night and day."

Mr Morahan asked why Radnidge drove when she was aware of a medical
condition.

Mr Harper said there was a question over whether her medical
condition was made clear to Radnidge.

Mr Morahan told Radnidge she had caused horrendous injuries to other
people.


--
John
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your older self. - Terry Pratchett, "Thud!"

cfsmtb

From the riders perspective, read about the incident & Noels recovery here:

http://www.noeldavies.com/

A Car Hits Your Riding Group - What Next?
http://www.noeldavies.com/?p=31

Adam F

John Pitts wrote:
> This is in relation to the crash which occurred in Newcastle a year ago.
> The driver went straight through a tee intersection at the bottom of a
> long steep hill, right into the bunch riding across on the other side of
> the road. Several cyclists were severely injured.
>
>
<snip>
>
> Defence barrister Peter Harper told the court his client had a clean
> record and had no recollection of the accident.
<snip>
> "She is reduced to tears on a daily basis and the nightmares
> continue during the night and day."
>
>

Is it just me or do these statements contradict one another?



--
//Adam F

Terryc

Adam F wrote:

>> Defence barrister Peter Harper told the court his client had a clean
>> record and had no recollection of the accident.
>
> <snip>
>
>> "She is reduced to tears on a daily basis and the nightmares
>> continue during the night and day."
>>
>>
>
> Is it just me or do these statements contradict one another?

Yep. If she has no recollection, then she should not have been driving
and should never be allowed to drive ever again.

John Pitts

On 2007-12-15, John Pitts <john@fatcyclist.com> wrote:
> From the Newcastle Morning Herald (I can't find this article online):
>
> Driver fined over crash
> ...

Here is a piece which accompanied the main article:

Some scars remain

Two of the cyclists run down and seriously injured by elderly
Belmont North woman Genita Radnidge, said they will never get over
the accident, despite the case now being closed.

David Benn suffered a broken neck in the accident.

He said while Radnidge's sentence gives him some closure, 12 months
on and with a cycling fatality this week, he is reluctant to return
to his once loved sport.

"I am really giving some serious thought to whether or not I will go
back to riding at all," he said.

The cyclist who suffered the most horrific injuries, Noel Davies,
said he was happy with the sentencing result.

"The sentence was hefty enough. She did not set out to do this
deliberately," he said.

"Even though my health is stuffed, my business career is over, I
have to get on with my life and live it as best I can."


I agree with Davies, there's nothing to be gained by complaining that
the sentence was too light. The woman won't be driving again, and she
seems remorseful. Nothing would be gained by putting her behind bars.

I think the issue is that she was driving with a medical condition which
made it dangerous for her to drive. Her lawyer claims that this wasn't
made clear to her. If people shouldn't be driving, how do we make sure
that they don't, without further eroding our civil liberties?

My wife used to be a doctor's receptionist, and she knew of one elderly
patient who was constantly having small car accidents and should not
have been driving, but her doctor refused to do anything about it. I
believe that the doctor's view was that mobility was important to this
woman. She was very frail and could not walk any great distance, and
taking her car away would be detrimental to her quality of life.

--
John
(The Establishment Club) was to be a satirical venue modelled on "those
wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler
and prevent the outbreak of the Second World War". -- Peter Cook

Terryc

John Pitts wrote:
> The woman won't be driving again,

lol, a 5 year ban is not a total ban.

> and she seems remorseful.

They always are. what idiot is going to say "they deserved it, they
shouldn't be on the roads". It was clear that she had a medical
condition that she should not have driven with.

> Nothing would be gained by putting her behind bars.


> I think the issue is that she was driving with a medical condition which
> made it dangerous for her to drive. Her lawyer claims that this wasn't
> made clear to her.

> If people shouldn't be driving, how do we make sure
> that they don't, without further eroding our civil liberties?

Confiscation and sale/destruction of the motor vehicle and imprisonment
with forced labour. Sale of all your assest to compensate people
injuried from your driving.



> My wife used to be a doctor's receptionist, and she knew of one elderly
> patient who was constantly having small car accidents and should not
> have been driving, but her doctor refused to do anything about it.

He should have been deregistered as a doctor. Is it any wonder that wise
people view doctors with less respect than used car salepeople.

> I
> believe that the doctor's view was that mobility was important to this
> woman. She was very frail and could not walk any great distance, and
> taking her car away would be detrimental to her quality of life.

See, the rationalisation just goes on and on and on. So basically it is
okay if she goes out and kills some one so long as her qualty of life
isn't affected.

Om a practical basis, there are gophers and other devices.
>

John Pitts

On 2007-12-16, Terryc <newsthreespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
> John Pitts wrote:
>> The woman won't be driving again,
>
> lol, a 5 year ban is not a total ban.

Read the article:
"He fined Radnidge $1000, disqualified her from driving for five
years and said he would recommend to the Roads and Traffic Authority
that she never again be issued with a driver's licence."

Surely the RTA would follow the judge's recommendation?


>> and she seems remorseful.
>
> They always are. what idiot is going to say "they deserved it, they
> shouldn't be on the roads".

Well I don't know if she's remorseful or not, but if she's like most
people I've met she would be. Not having met her, I'm happy to assume
that she's like most people.


>> If people shouldn't be driving, how do we make sure
>> that they don't, without further eroding our civil liberties?
>
> Confiscation and sale/destruction of the motor vehicle and imprisonment
> with forced labour. Sale of all your assest to compensate people
> injuried from your driving.

Forced labour for a 75 year old woman? I'm glad I don't live in your
utopia.


>> I
>> believe that the doctor's view was that mobility was important to this
>> woman. She was very frail and could not walk any great distance, and
>> taking her car away would be detrimental to her quality of life.
>
> See, the rationalisation just goes on and on and on. So basically it is
> okay if she goes out and kills some one so long as her qualty of life
> isn't affected.

I'm not saying that I agree with the doctor. She nearly took me out a
couple of times, both in the car and on my bike.

I think the problem is the mindset that says, "You need a car to get
anywhere." Both the doctor and the patient (in my story) suffered from
that misconception.


> Om a practical basis, there are gophers and other devices.

This was 10 or 15 years ago - I don't think gophers weren't around then.

--
John
ALL CAPS TALK LEADS TO B1FF T4LK. B1FF T4LK LE4D$ 2 W4r37_t4LK.
W4r3Zt/\1k L34d$ 2 31337 \/\//\r37_ |>0o|) 7/\|_|<,
4|\||) 7|¬3|23 7!¬3 |)/\|2|( 51|)3 |_|3$ - Charles Cooke

TimC

On 2007-12-16, John Pitts (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> My wife used to be a doctor's receptionist, and she knew of one elderly
> patient who was constantly having small car accidents and should not
> have been driving, but her doctor refused to do anything about it. I
> believe that the doctor's view was that mobility was important to this
> woman. She was very frail and could not walk any great distance, and
> taking her car away would be detrimental to her quality of life.

vs everyone elses.

I'm going to be a heartless bastard (I do that well) and say that
causing someone to lose a bit of quality of life for their remaining
few years is probably the better evil than causing many people large
impacts in their quality of life for their remaining many years.

There are ways to get around other than car or leg power. Those
damned buggies come to mind.

I'm sure there is a way to tip off RTA (etc) without requiring a
doctors certificate -- surely RTA can force a driver to be tested by a
reputable doctor.

--
TimC
CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85
Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight. -- unk

Terryc

John Pitts wrote:

> Surely the RTA would follow the judge's recommendation?

Umm AFAIK, a recommendation has no legal basis.



> Forced labour for a 75 year old woman? I'm glad I don't live in your
> utopia.

AFAIK, most illegal driving is by young people.

I do not always think old people should be treated any more liently. She
certainly didn't display any wisdom of being aged, so I fail to see that
she gets old persons clemency. Perhaps she needs to be committed to a
home for public safety.


> I'm not saying that I agree with the doctor. She nearly took me out a
> couple of times, both in the car and on my bike.

We definitely need hoon legislation then {:-)

>
> I think the problem is the mindset that says, "You need a car to get
> anywhere." Both the doctor and the patient (in my story) suffered from
> that misconception.

Agree wholeheartedly.

> This was 10 or 15 years ago - I don't think gophers weren't around then.
I thinkthey were. Perhaps not as obviously as now.
>

Terryc

TimC wrote:

> I'm sure there is a way to tip off RTA (etc) without requiring a
> doctors certificate -- surely RTA can force a driver to be tested by a
> reputable doctor.

It is a bit of a catch 22. If you have a notifieable health issue, you
are required to submit to annual assessment by a doctor. So if the
doctor is reluctant to notify, you can imagine how keen they will be to
write an adverse report.

OTOH, given that the report can restrict you to driving certain distance
each day or between certain places, no responsible doctor should feel
any problems about writing a restricting report.

Donga

On Dec 16, 5:19 pm, Terryc <newsthreespam-s...@woa.com.au> wrote:
> TimC wrote:
> > I'm sure there is a way to tip off RTA (etc) without requiring a
> > doctors certificate -- surely RTA can force a driver to be tested by a
> > reputable doctor.
>
> It is a bit of a catch 22. If you have a notifieable health issue, you
> are required to submit to annual assessment by a doctor. So if the
> doctor is reluctant to notify, you can imagine how keen they will be to
> write an adverse report.
>
> OTOH, given that the report can restrict you to driving certain distance
> each day or between certain places, no responsible doctor should feel
> any problems about writing a restricting report.

The Courier Mail yesterday reported on 'Jet's Law' in Queensland, for
mandatory reporting of drivers' medical conditions to Queensland
Transport:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/...25-3102,00.html

"QUEENSLAND'S first eponymous law will be named after 22-month-old Jet
Rowland, who was killed in a car crash three years ago.

Transport Minister John Mickel committed the Government to the move
following a meeting with Jet's mother Anita Rowland, who has
campaigned tirelessly on road safety since her son's death.

Jet was killed after a driver suffering an epileptic fit crashed into
the Rowland family car on the Logan Motorway, south of Brisbane, in
February 2004.

Mrs Rowland suffered horrific injuries in the crash and her eldest son
remains confined to a wheelchair.

Jet's death inspired the introduction of a law that requires motorists
to report serious and long-term medical conditions to Queensland
Transport.

A spokesman for Mr Mickel said the Minister would lobby Cabinet early
next year to have the legislation renamed.

Mrs Rowland said Jet's law was a legacy she had always hoped for her
son, who she would never see grow up.

Mrs Rowland recently launched a petition calling for doctors to notify
Queensland Transport of patients with medical conditions affecting
their driving.

The petition can be found online at www.gopetition.com/petitions/jets-law.html."

matagi

Not necessarily, one can have no recollection of an event but still be reduced to tears and have nightmares based on the knowledge that one had caused serious injury and death.

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:45:51 GMT
TimC <tconnors@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I'm going to be a heartless bastard (I do that well) and say that
> causing someone to lose a bit of quality of life for their remaining
> few years is probably the better evil than causing many people large
> impacts in their quality of life for their remaining many years.

well.. "definite arge amount of quality of life" vs "probably
annoyance and *possible* large amount of quality of life for possibly
one person"

After one serious crash with injury it is unlikely she'd be driving
again.

I am unsure how many small accidents are worth her life - restricting
her has a disturbingly high chance of killing her. But how likey is a
serious crash? I don't know, Should she be punished for what she
might do, not what she has done?

whether someone needs a car depends a lot on where they live. Those
with health and youth and who live close to the places they want to go
may think cars aren't needed. Those who actually visit their aged
relatives (let alone care for them..) may have different views.

Aged people driving is a serious difficulty. When it's not you or
someone you know and care about it is easy to say "ban them"! When
reality hits it is harder to be so sure.

Comes back to the larger difficulty - that the country and society is
built around the car and its ease and convenience. Fixing that isn't
cheap and it isn't easy.


Zebee
- who may well have to deal with this problem soon and ain't ooking forward
to it.

Theo Bekkers

John Pitts wrote:
> Terryc wrote:

>> lol, a 5 year ban is not a total ban.

I think that for her it would be.

> Well I don't know if she's remorseful or not, but if she's like most
> people I've met she would be. Not having met her, I'm happy to assume
> that she's like most people.

Yup.

>> Confiscation and sale/destruction of the motor vehicle and
>> imprisonment with forced labour. Sale of all your assest to
>> compensate people injuried from your driving.

Reality apparently eludes you.

> Forced labour for a 75 year old woman? I'm glad I don't live in your
> utopia.

Aye.

>> Om a practical basis, there are gophers and other devices.

> This was 10 or 15 years ago - I don't think gophers weren't around
> then.

I bought one for my Mother-in-law circa 1994.

Theo