J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Anyone read about this,

Woman driver who killed cyclist mother-of-three freed after 'fainting at the wheel' | Mail Online

What do you make of it ?

I reckon she was fannying with her phone given she had been suing it a coupel of minutes before, never fainted before or since, sounds well fishy to me but seems to have got away with it.

ChrisB

All very fishy IMHO and it doesn't sound like her driving license has been withdrawn on medical grounds. If there's no explanation for why she might have fainted then it could happen again so she's not safe to be on the road (again IMHO).

Spoon

Almost unbelievable yet totally feasible having been on the end of a phone call to inform me the wife had attacked a tree on a main road out of town. I was expecting her home any minute.

It turns out that at 36 years of age she suffered her first ever seizure. Witnesses say she accelerated and veered right, straight across oncoming traffic on a normally very busy road. She hit the tree head on at between 40-50MPH and walked away after being pulled out of the car.

Okay she was still post seizure so hadn't a clue who she was, where she was or why she was there and tried to do a runner straight back into the road. Luckily traffic cops were already there, as they were driving past, and restrained her.

So yes, the almost unbelievable can happen. She suffered more afterwards from knowing what she could have done to others than anything else. It was just incredibly fortunate she didn't wipe anybody else out.

EddScott

Love the Daily Fail method of reporting.

£60,000 Range Rover
Mowed Down
Lethal Weapon
On the phone
Clearly wealthy
Clearly got off because she's wealthy
What a misscarriage of justice

Whether she did or did not feint, the way the story is reported by the Mail is disgusting.

The RR carried on until something stopped it. If you hit something, even if you aren't looking, your instinct is to brake. She didn't.

speedking

Did she carry on driving?

Kinni

If you mean after running over the person then yes

Markus

A very good friend of mine has also had a freak seizure, thankfully not whilst driving. It's the first and only time it's happened. She obviously went to hospital and one of the things they did was to suspend her drivers license. She was told to get it back she'd need to wait at least three months and then have various tests and if the results were promising she'd be able to obtain a letter from the doctor which she could then use to regain her license.

Now this was in Canada, but I would like to presume a similar thing would happen in the UK, and if so, this woman should have had her license suspended. Perhaps the DM is being selective about reporting this fact, we wouldn't want it getting in the way of sensationalism would we

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

The UK's regulations are listed in this booklet: http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/~/media/p..._a_glance.ashx

scud8

iTrader: (1)

I thought they would take your licence away in this situation and you had to be seizure-free for over a year before you could get it back. That was certainly the case when my wife was diagnosed with a brain tumour and I don't see why an unexplained seizure should be any different.

Markus

So, if I'm reading that right, and I like to think I am, it would be page 8, item 4 or 5. If item 4, then 6 months off driving. If item 5 then license refused/revoked for 6 months.

I think that this woman would be looking at item 5 if she had blacked out and had no prior history of seizures.

The Zohan

err, no not always, had a mate who ducked due to a brick disloging itself from the back wheels of a tipper truck and heading towards his screen, the brick shattered the screen, he just carried on until he hit a roundabout 50yds or so up the road. I was following him at the time and wondered what the hell had happened

More recently:Japanese Woman Drove Home With Body Of Pensioner Lodged In Windscreen | Strange News | Sky News

Spoon

This was the case with my wife in June 2009. A 12 months sabbatical.

scud8

iTrader: (1)

Looking at the report in the Mail it sounds more like item 3 on page 7 - an unexplained syncope with high risk of recurrence (her defence specifically claimed a syncope and the fact that it happened while behind the wheel and caused an accident means they should treat it as high risk of recurrence - it didn't sound like a seizure). Unless they can find and treat the cause she should have her licence revoked until she has not had a recurrence for 6 months.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Just seems strange she admitted using her phone 2 minutes before but absolutely not when she hit the cyclists, that was her fainting.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

If she actually blacked out, what difference would it have made whether there was a phone in her hand or not?

Do you find the presence of a phone distracting while you're unconscious?

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I was suggeesting perhaps that it was a coincidence that she happened to think it was ok to drive and use her mbile two minutes earlier yet strangely there happened to be a medical reason when she hit and killed someone, i.e. I think the faint thing is bogus and she was probably fannying with her phone.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

I'd have thought the operator's logs would soon show whether the phone was in use at the time or not.

Even if it was, I think it would be a mistake to automatically assume that's why she crashed. After all, that's the same "logic" that's replaced road policing with speed cameras.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

It wouldnt show someone composing a text or dialing but point taken, it just seems a bit fishy to me.

Leslie

I presume she will get a bit of stick for using the phone. We cannot say if that was a coincidence and that she fainted after she was finished with the phone. That would have to come from the phone company and the medics.

The whole thing is a tragic affair and I feel sorry for the dead woman's family.

Les

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Also, how would the exact time of the accident be pegged, the phone logs would be accurate but would the witnesses have accurate timepieces that they looked at and recorded the time having seen a horrific accident or would the car record the time, doubt it registered anything, so, potentially she may have been on the phone at the time of the incident, though I would imagine there is an explanation I have missed.