The family of a biker killed on his first day of retirement by a 93-year-old motorist yesterday called for stricter rules governing older drivers.
Alfred Ross admitted causing death by careless driving and is thought to be the oldest person in the country to be convicted of the offence.
He shuffled into New Forest Magistrates Court in Lyndhurst, Hampshire, with a walking stick to hear his sentence yesterday.
Magistrates told him to raise his hand if he could not hear properly as he was fined £3750 and banned from driving for five years.
Ross pulled out in front of Jeffrey Bennett's Honda motorbike in Brockenhurst on October 8, last year.
Mr Bennett was so badly injured he died at the scene, just one day after his 65th birthday and his retirement. He had worked in the insurance industry then as a builder.
Outside court Mr Bennett's daughter Lucy and his partner Julia Mason called for tighter legislation for drivers over 70.
In a statement, they said Ross's sentence could not make their loss any more bearable. "What it has done, however, is highlight the existing legislation governing older drivers, which is grossly inadequate," they said.
"Currently, drivers who are more than 70 years of age are required to complete a form every three years and asked to declare any medical conditions. Only if they declare a medical condition are they required to have an examination by their doctor."
They said many elderly drivers were not honest on the form and that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents wanted "serious consideration" for compulsory medical checks for older drivers.
They added: "Our situation begs the question: Why this is not in place already?' Surely, we need an immediate change in the law. I would also urge families of older drivers to address any concerns they may have about their driving abilities. You too have a responsibility if you think there is a problem.
"What happened to my father was entirely preventable. His death will always be devastating, but if it can bring about a re-evaluation of the current legislation and prevent this happening to another family, we will have some comfort."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article