Scooter driver mows down elderly couple, breaks no law

Mail Online
4 November 2010

A disabled woman on a mobility scooter sped off in a ‘hit and run’ accident leaving an elderly couple badly injured on the pavement.



June Petty, 69, was left with a broken pelvis and spent ten days in hospital, while husband Ken suffered cuts and bruises after being knocked to the ground near their home.

The middle-aged woman drove off as they lay stricken on the pavement, shouting: "I have to go to Tesco."

Now the couple from Mexborough, South Yorkshire, are calling for a change in the law to tighten regulations covering the use of the scooters.

Police were called and want to question the unidentified woman, but it is not clear whether she has broken the law as scooters are not classed as ‘motor vehicles'.

Mr Petty, 69, a retired milkman, said:"She must have been going at some speed because she hit us with so much force that I thought it was a car that had mounted the pavement."

Mobility scooters with a maximum speed of 4 mph can be used on the pavement and to cross the road. Larger scooters with a maximum speed of 8mph can be used to drive along roads and highways, but not motorways, and have to be registered with the DVLA.

The incident comes just a day after one police force introduced Britain’s first scooter driving lessons.

The three-hour session, hosted by Norfolk Constabulary, saw riders negotiate slopes, kerbs, pavements and pedestrian crossings, and tackle a slalom course of cones in a car park.

The force introduced the course after receiving complaints about antisocial ‘scooting’.

Chief Inspector Dennis Lacey said: ‘The aim is to improve safety awareness among mobility scooter users by increasing their confidence when carrying out manoeuvres such as parking, reversing and negotiating kerbs.

‘Mobility scooters can be a vital mode of transport for some people. However, we need to ensure that they are used in an appropriate and safe manner.

There are around 330,000 scooter drivers in the UK, and they are legally allowed to drive on roads, pavements and in pedestrian areas. But they currently need no training or insurance for the vehicles, some of which can travel at up to eight miles per hour.

Jim Rawlings, spokesman for disability charity Mobilise, urged the government to make safety courses for mobility scooters a legal requirement. He added: ‘Improvement in training is something we strongly advocate.’

The couple are calling for a change in the law to tighten regulations covering the use of the scooters that have been responsible for a string of accidents

‘We both ended up on the floor, and the scooter ended up on top of me . I was shouting for her to reverse off but she just looked as if she was in a daze.

‘She eventually got off but while we were still down she just sped off and said she was going to Tesco. There were loads of witnesses in the shops nearby and they came to help. They couldn’t believe what they had seen.'

Mrs Petty, who is having to use a wheelchair following last month’s accident, added:’I was in a lot of pain and I knew I had a serious injury. We were both in a shock and I couldn’t believe what had happened. The woman didn’t seem to care about what she had done and she just drove off.

"Because of my injuries I feel like a prisoner in my own home. I need help with everything and I don’t know how long it will be before I fully recover."

"I think there should be new laws to ensure that people use these scooters in a responsible manner. People don’t appear to have any training on them and they don’t have insurance for them."

A spokeswoman for South Yorkshire Police said : ‘We are investigating the incident but at this stage the driver has not been traced, no arrest has been made and no one has been charged.

"Mobility scooters are classed as mechanically propelled vehicles rather than motor vehicles within the Road Traffic Act 1988. Therefore this type of vehicle does not fall within the remit of road traffic law."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... o-run.html

###

Oh dear. Anti-social scooting.
No insurance, no licensing, no required training or annual certifications? They seem to be slipping.
But she did have to get to Lotus, leaving the injured geriatrics sprawled on the roadside. Sounds like a reasonable explanation.

What do other posters make of this catastrophe? The Lotus-bound shopper broke no laws if there are no scooter laws to break. I'd say she's a hero for exposing the ridiculousness of British jurisprudence.

Hurting someone by carelessness is still an offense. She should be charged whether she was on a scooter, bicycle or whatever. I think even if you were running and ran into someone and injured them you would be responsible. In this case she has really hurt an old couple very badly through no fault of there own.

jai yen yen wrote:Hurting someone by carelessness is still an offense. She should be charged whether she was on a scooter, bicycle or whatever. I think even if you were running and ran into someone and injured them you would be responsible. In this case she has really hurt an old couple very badly through no fault of there own.

I agree 100%!I wonder if an assault charge with gross indifference would be appropiate?

The Lotus-bound shopper broke no laws if there are no scooter laws to break. I'd say she's a hero for exposing the ridiculousness of British jurisprudence.

That maybe your interpretation, but is simply incorrect.
England may not be as litigious a nation as some but there are a number of different criminal laws under which the woman, once identified, questioned & suspected of acting illegally could be charged. That one of them isn't a road traffic offence is of no importance.
Also the couple can pursue civil claims through the courts without any police involvement.
Like many of the Daily Mail's "stories" it is reported in this way for political purposes with scant regard for the truth. That some people are willing to take the tale hook, line & sinker shows just how gullible they are.

My gran and aunt Maud both have scooters and race all the time on the way to the chiropodist , never ran anyone over but killed a couple of dogs and a rabbit . They formed an hells granny gang and extort money from teenagers and druggies to make up their pensions. I have checked and neither were involved in the Mexboro incident at the time my gran was training with Scunthorpe utd and Maud was having a blue rinse .

mash

I think licensing and extensive training requirements are in order. We, as a civilized society, simply can't tolerate rouge elements cruising the streets with no regard for the safety and welfare of fellow citizens. Perhaps something along the lines of UK police bicycle riding manual. Practical, friendly, useful and only 93 pages!

Police officers were ridiculed today after drawing up a step-by-step guide to riding a bicycle.

The 93-page full-colour guide, which comes in two volumes, gives advice on how to balance so officers do not fall off.

The book, titled the Police Cycle Training Doctrine, also covers key skills such as how to brake, turn and avoid the kerb.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 19333.html

Perhaps next there will be a friendly, government-funded publication on "How To Breathe."

Yet another 'non story' Tex. You really should get your reading comprehension in order.
No one paid for this report - as you imply.

The guidance was drawn up by a group of cycling enthusiasts working for police forces around England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
They submitted it to the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which co-ordinates police strategy.

Acpo had already turned the guide down as a bad idea..

"This work was neither requested nor drawn up by Acpo and we do not endorse it.
It was put forward by a group of well-meaning police officers with an interest in this area. Acpo will not be taking it forward."

You REALLY must try harder...or not at all...

jackspratt wrote:tea drinker

I despise tea.
Much better suited for dumping in a bay (or klong) than ingesting.
Perhaps the metaphor is lost on muddled and easily confused minds.

You cant beat a lovely cuppa tea TP made properly and served with a scone and jam "English high tea" its a way of life !! .

So what is ur favourite tipple sir , Jim Beam , root beer or the pissy stuff the Amerigays pass of as Budweiser ?

pienmash wrote:So what is ur favourite tipple sir , Jim Beam , root beer or the pissy stuff the Amerigays pass of as Budweiser ?

Tricky spelling that... "off." The double "f" throws even the best wordsmiths.
Budweiser is owned by Euro~peons.

i will have to check that TP ....... the real stuff may be owned by our mob but your lot copied it and made it more like piss than beer , even tho you are japing me with my spelting i still fink you are ok ish for a septic .

mush

nah, the real stuff was Czech "Budwar" a wonderful brew. The US Budweiser folks fought with them over naming at the beginning of the 20th century... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_trademark_dispute...

and yes indeedy, Budweiser is now owned by AB INBEV based in Leuven Belgium so it is indeed a purveyor of what may now be considered a "Euro-pissy" beer!! may it never pass my lips again! ar! ar! ar!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AB_InBev