Driving test and suitability to drive

sevenhills

Nigel Fitzgibbon, mitigating, told the court that Walker had special educational needs and was diagnosed at the age of eight.

This meant he often struggled with confusion, had difficulty understanding left and right, and needed to rehearse new routes several times.

The day before the accident, Walker was taken on a familiarisation route to the school as a passenger on the bus

https://planetradio.co.uk/hits-radio/south-coast/news/school-bus-driver-jailed-over-winchester-bridge-crash/

Some news media report this SEN and some not.

Is the fact that the driver has special educational needs relevant to the cause of the accident? I am aware of a young SEN driver that crashed his car because he was driving dangerously, local to me, the accident killed a young passenger and injured others.

We all have different abilities, is the driving test strict enough to spot emotional stability?

AdrianC

It may well be relevant, if his difficulties meant that the familiarisation was not sufficient for his needs. Remember, employers MUST by law make reasonable allowances for disabilities, and repeating the familiarisation run a few times is perfectly reasonable.

That mitigation may move some of the onus from the driver onto the employer, if the employer's failure to make those adjustments was a causal factor.

Clearly, however, it's not the only - or even the major - causal factor, because the driver should have been driving at a speed where he could have stopped before the bridge, and should have been well aware of the height of the vehicle. It's a legal requirement for the height of tall vehicles to be clearly displayed inside the cab, within the driver's sightline. Streetview shows there to be a low bridge warning sign on the junction he should have turned at, as well as on the bridge itself.

It's not a driving test issue.

daveyjp

I live very close to a low railway bridge.  Going down the hill its obvious as you can see the bridge, uphill you can't see it as immediately prior is a now disused bridge which is high enough for a HGV, but it obstructs the low bridge, especially when sat high in a HGV cab.

The high bridge has in huge yellow lettering 'LOW BRIDGE', lots of signs, but it is still a regular sight of either a lorry hitting the bridge and ripping its roof off, or getting to the low bridge and then trying to reverse out of the problem.

More than once it has needed a rescue vehicle as the HGV driver has jack knifed the cab trying to turn the artic round.

TooManyPoints

Purely by chance I know that very bridge. I have a relative who lived nearby some years ago.

Quite frankly, "Special Educational Needs" or not, anybody driving a double deck bus towards that bridge who did not recognise the hazard it presented should not be driving at all. It was extremely fortunate that there were no fatalities and I think three years (when the maximum is five - assuming the defendant pleaded Not Guilty) was lenient. The danger is that the offence will be "spent" in seven years time. By then Mr Walker will be 43, leaving him free to apply for other driving jobs.

Whatever problems he has, Mr Walker should not be allowed near any large vehicles again, especially those which carry passengers. The judge could have imposed a sentence of four years and one day - then the conviction would never ne spent.

Aretnap

TooManyPoints said:

 I think three years (when the maximum is five - assuming the defendant pleaded Not Guilty) was lenient.

"Martin Robert Walker, 36, of Burke Drive in Southampton pleaded guilty to three counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving"

Assuming he entered the guilty plea at the earliest opportunity he would be entitled to a one third reduction from the maximum of 5 years, meaning that the actual sentence was very close to the maximum available to the judge. Even more so when you consider the additional guidance that the maximum sentence should almost never be imposed for a first offence, assuming that applies.

TooManyPoints

Yes thank Aretnap. I'd missed that.

Yes, there is guidance that maximum sentences should rarely be imposed. Mr Walker received only four months less than that and the judge obviously viewed the offence at the very top end of seriousness. The reason I really commented on the sentence was because of the issue of it being spent. In my view it should never be spent as far as applying for driving jobs is concerned but unfortunately the Rehabilitation of Offenders' Act is not quite sophisticated enough!

sevenhills

TooManyPoints said:

Quite frankly, "Special Educational Needs" or not, anybody driving a double deck bus towards that bridge who did not recognise the hazard it presented should not be driving at all.

I would think that most people convicted of dangerous driving would have done it intentionally, I am assuming this driver did his best, but that wasn't good enough.

AdrianC

sevenhills said:

TooManyPoints said:

Quite frankly, "Special Educational Needs" or not, anybody driving a double deck bus towards that bridge who did not recognise the hazard it presented should not be driving at all.

I would think that most people convicted of dangerous driving would have done it intentionally, I am assuming this driver did his best, but that wasn't good enough.

One thing that's not been mentioned so far is that ANY Dangerous Driving conviction carries a mandatory ban AND a mandatory extended retest.
For Serious Injury by DD, it's a 2yr minimum mandatory ban.

In this case, it's 3yrs PLUS 18mo to allow for time in custody.

So the very, VERY earliest he can take that extended retest is 4.5yrs time, and he isn't behind the wheel until he's passed it.

That will just give him his car licence back.

He won't be behind the wheel of anything that requires a vocational licence such as PSV until he's repassed the test for that, as well as the extended retest.

Even then, it's not a formality - he will need the permission of the Traffic Commissioner to take those tests.

https://www.gov.uk/driving-disqualifications/disqualification-until-test-pass-or-extended-test-pass

sheramber

Where I used to live there was a low bridge. The council made a large turning area in front of it  so those who realised their mistake could turn round and go back.