Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Van driver who crushed Deliveroo cyclist in Bristol had suffered 'medical episode'

Bystander leapt into van to apply handbrake

The driver of a hire van that crushed a Deliveroo cyclist on Queens Road in Bristol on Wednesday had suffered ‘an unforeseeable medical episode’ according to police. A number of people helped the cyclist in the moments before the emergency services arrived, pushing the van off his neck to allow him to breathe.

The Bristol Post reports that a bystander jumped into the moving van and fought with the driver to pull his feet from the pedals because he had run over a Deliveroo cyclist and was dragging him down the road.

Jonny Lennon said: “There were people at the crossing there, and the Deliveroo cyclist was there too. Then in my periphery I saw this van coming down the road and I thought ‘he’s not going to stop.’

“He didn’t and took the cyclist out head-on. How he didn’t see him, I don’t know – he must have done. The cyclist was standing up on his pedals with a bright Deliveroo backpack on and he was knocked down by the van, and the bike and him went under the van.”

Lennon had been at London Bridge when terrorists used a van to mow down pedestrians and at first thought something similar was happening.

Immediately after the initial collision, he ran alongside the van, on the passenger side, screaming.

“While I was running, the front wheels went over the kid and the bike – he still didn’t stop. I grabbed the side door screaming at him to stop. I jumped into the passenger seat and then he looked at me.

“I thought ‘he’s going to crash’. I can see all these people ahead, so I held the steering wheel straight to keep the van on the road.

“He started hitting me, back-handing me. I started to look for the keys, I couldn’t see where the handbrake was. I looked down at his feet and I put my head down, let go of the steering wheel and dived between his knees.

“I pulled his feet back off the pedals. He was on the clutch and the accelerator and I got his feet off and reached back and flicked the gear stick out of gear.”

Lennon then found the handbrake and pulled it on to bring the vehicle to a stop.

After checking on the cyclist, he said the driver was still sitting in the vehicle with other passers-by trying to get him out.

“I thought ‘shit, if he tries to escape and drive off, he’ll kill the kid’. At this point, then the driver got out. But I said we need to push the van back.

“I said to everybody, ‘it’s just one foot back, let’s go’. I gave the nod to this guy who got in the van ready to drop the handbrake, and then we did it, we moved it back just a foot.”

Police initially detained the driver, but he was not arrested.

“He was in the back of the police car and when I went over to give my details to the police, he jumped out and started screaming at me,” said Lennon. “It was surreal.”

A spokesperson from Avon and Somerset Police said: "We’d like to thank members of the public who assisted an injured cyclist following a collision in Clifton.

"Yesterday (August 29) at about 2.10pm in Queens Road, the driver of a van suffered an unforeseeable medical episode which resulted in the van colliding with a male cyclist.

"The driver has since been treated at hospital for this. He has voluntarily surrendered his driving licence while enquiries are ongoing.

"A number of people helped the cyclist in the moments before the emergency services arrived. The man was taken to hospital with serious injuries, however, they were not believed to be life-threatening."

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

19 comments

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
2 likes

Don't forget there are many drivers out there on prescription medication that makes them unfit to be driving,  I'm guessing their GPs know this too.

Avatar
RoubaixCube | 5 years ago
2 likes

Reminds me of another driver who had suffered a 'medical episode' whilst at the wheel of an 5 tonne refuse vehicle and ended up mowing down a load of people, killing 6 and injuring 15.

 

Avoided jail and was banned from driving. Though he has been arrested for driving without a license and driving whilst banned a few times since the incident.

 

Why are cunts like these not in jail?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Glasgow_bin_lorry_crash

Avatar
mc | 5 years ago
2 likes

With regards the original article, I know a driver who did black out at the wheel. He had what he thought was just a cold/cough, and went to work. Driving to a job mid-morning, he could remember starting to cough, but the next thing he remembers was waking up down an embankment with the police already there.

He got his license suspended immediately until he could prove he was medically fit to drive again.

I also know another driver who blacked out due to a cough, but he done it at home on the stairs while signed off sick, and woke up with his ankle/foot pointing the wrong direction, which then had to be pinned under local anaesthetic. He said that experience wasn't too bad until they started hammering the pin in!

 

Which brings me onto the second point. Doctors have no obligation to nofity the DVLA that you are unfit to drive, which was highlighted by the whole Glasgow bin lorry incident.
You simply have to pass a medical examination, and there is no requirement for you to use a doctor who has access to your medical history. You could be attending your own doctor for a miriad of illnesses, but rock up to an independant doctor and lie to get a medical that says you're in perfect health. However, I can understand why professional drivers would take that risk, as without a valid medical, they'd be sacked and lose what is likely to be the only job they've done for a long time.

I'm in no way condoning drivers who do get medicals through lying, but if you were put in the position of losing your career, or lying about your health, can you honestly say you'd tell the truth?

Avatar
HoarseMann | 5 years ago
1 like

What an incredible story, kudos to bystanders for getting involved and putting themselves at risk to save others.

There's not enough info to comment on this case. However, the Glasgow bin lorry tragedy highlighted the ease with which unfit drivers can continue to pose a threat with little deterrent.

There were missed opportunities...

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2761381/glasgow-bin-lorry-crash-ha...

Then no real punishment for him getting back behind the wheel after the event...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/31/glasgow-bin-lorry-death-...

The government really needs to review all aspects of road crime.

Avatar
Griff500 | 5 years ago
2 likes

I have an issue with voluntary surrender of licence in these cases. A few years back a family member suffered a stroke, and 6 months later, even though it was obvious to the whole family that he was incapable, his idiot doctors signed him off to drive. First time out in the car he drove 5 miles the wrong way down a dual carriageway, with cars avoiding him, before colliding with another vehicle when he tried to exit at a roundabout, obviously still facing the wrong way. The police attended, and he surrendered his licence to avoid a dangerous driving charge. Some months later he applied to get his licence back, and merely had to submit a checkbox questionnaire " do you suffer blackouts, do you suffer dizziness etc" on which he lied, and his licence was returned. There followed much lobbying of dvla and the insurance company by the family (his doctor refused to discuss it with us due to patient confidentiality), before common sense prevailed. In his case he had not deliberately set out to avoid prosecution, but it could be easily done.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Griff500 | 5 years ago
2 likes

Griff500 wrote:

I have an issue with voluntary surrender of licence in these cases. A few years back a family member suffered a stroke, and 6 months later, even though it was obvious to the whole family that he was incapable, his idiot doctors signed him off to drive. First time out in the car he drove 5 miles the wrong way down a dual carriageway, with cars avoiding him, before colliding with another vehicle when he tried to exit at a roundabout, obviously still facing the wrong way. The police attended, and he surrendered his licence to avoid a dangerous driving charge. Some months later he applied to get his licence back, and merely had to submit a checkbox questionnaire " do you suffer blackouts, do you suffer dizziness etc" on which he lied, and his licence was returned. There followed much lobbying of dvla and the insurance company by the family (his doctor refused to discuss it with us due to patient confidentiality), before common sense prevailed. In his case he had not deliberately set out to avoid prosecution, but it could be easily done.

Yep that is definitely a loophole.

The problem is that the doctors aren't going to be able to spend enough time to really judge whether a person is fit to drive or not and to be fair, it's not really their area of expertise.

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

Avatar
mike the bike replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

 

When an older driver is involved in an incident, regardless of whether there is fault attributed, the police have the authority to inform the DVLA of a possible medical condition, and they often do this.  Almost always this results in a free, DVSA driving test and, should the result go against the candidate, their licence is revoked.  Exactly this has recently happened to my next-door neighbour and he has accepted the outcome and sold his car.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent the person starting the whole procedure of obtaining a new licence, but few do.

Avatar
Griff500 replied to mike the bike | 5 years ago
5 likes
mike the bike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

 

When an older driver is involved in an incident, regardless of whether there is fault attributed, the police have the authority to inform the DVLA of a possible medical condition, and they often do this.  Almost always this results in a free, DVSA driving test and, should the result go against the candidate, their licence is revoked.  Exactly this has recently happened to my next-door neighbour and he has accepted the outcome and sold his car.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent the person starting the whole procedure of obtaining a new licence, but few do.

Authority, yes, but it is not mandatory. If they had done so with my father, my life would have been easier. It should be made more difficult to get a licence back once surrendered.

If fact, the route you describe is open to all of us, and age doesn't come into it. You can shop your boss if you wish. The process is described on the DVLA site. I used it, but it took a few months to filter through. Shopping my old man made me feel a real shit, but it would have been worse to do nothing and see somebody hurt.

Avatar
Gus T replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

I have an issue with voluntary surrender of licence in these cases. A few years back a family member suffered a stroke, and 6 months later, even though it was obvious to the whole family that he was incapable, his idiot doctors signed him off to drive. First time out in the car he drove 5 miles the wrong way down a dual carriageway, with cars avoiding him, before colliding with another vehicle when he tried to exit at a roundabout, obviously still facing the wrong way. The police attended, and he surrendered his licence to avoid a dangerous driving charge. Some months later he applied to get his licence back, and merely had to submit a checkbox questionnaire " do you suffer blackouts, do you suffer dizziness etc" on which he lied, and his licence was returned. There followed much lobbying of dvla and the insurance company by the family (his doctor refused to discuss it with us due to patient confidentiality), before common sense prevailed. In his case he had not deliberately set out to avoid prosecution, but it could be easily done.

Yep that is definitely a loophole.

The problem is that the doctors aren't going to be able to spend enough time to really judge whether a person is fit to drive or not and to be fair, it's not really their area of expertise.

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

Except this is complete bollocks, GP's have been unable to give permission for people to drive for over 15 years, the decision on whether someone can drive or not lies purely with DVLA as I can testify from personal experience. I temporarily blacked out whilst driving, luckily on and empty road, approx 15 years ago, after numerous tests it was put down to chronic nervous exhaustion. I was advised. by the hospital I was admitted to, to report the blackout to DVLA and my licence was temporarily suspended and not re-instated until all the test resuts were sent to DVLA and referred to one of their doctors to make a decision. Where the system falls down is that it relies on self referral by the driver, GP's, Ambulance Services, Opticians and hospaitals are not allowed to make referrals to DVLA because of the Data Protection Act and there is no face to face examination by a DVLA doctor even if the driver does self refer. All of which means that there are a lot of people driving who should not be, because they do not self refer for fear of losing their licence. This isn't a loophole in the Law, it was a concious decision by politicians "because all drivers are completely honest" (sarcasm off) and it was it cheaper.  There needs a change in the law to require medical professionals to refer people to DVLA but this won't happen because there isn't the political will to do so.

 

Avatar
Griff500 replied to Gus T | 5 years ago
1 like
Gus T wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

I have an issue with voluntary surrender of licence in these cases. A few years back a family member suffered a stroke, and 6 months later, even though it was obvious to the whole family that he was incapable, his idiot doctors signed him off to drive. First time out in the car he drove 5 miles the wrong way down a dual carriageway, with cars avoiding him, before colliding with another vehicle when he tried to exit at a roundabout, obviously still facing the wrong way. The police attended, and he surrendered his licence to avoid a dangerous driving charge. Some months later he applied to get his licence back, and merely had to submit a checkbox questionnaire " do you suffer blackouts, do you suffer dizziness etc" on which he lied, and his licence was returned. There followed much lobbying of dvla and the insurance company by the family (his doctor refused to discuss it with us due to patient confidentiality), before common sense prevailed. In his case he had not deliberately set out to avoid prosecution, but it could be easily done.

Yep that is definitely a loophole.

The problem is that the doctors aren't going to be able to spend enough time to really judge whether a person is fit to drive or not and to be fair, it's not really their area of expertise.

Maybe an extended re-test would be more appropriate with additional re-tests every few months or so depending on the nature of the medical condition.

Except this is complete bollocks, GP's have been unable to give permission for

 

Except that at no point did I say the doctor was able to give permission to drive! What I said was a checkbox medical form was submitted to DVLA (by the doctor), so please be careful throwing around the "complete bollocks" comments. There was no medical other than an eye test, and although the doctor would not discuss the content with me, he did admit that he was bound to comply only with verbal answers given by the patient. This was 4 years ago.

Avatar
Griff500 replied to Gus T | 5 years ago
1 like

Gus T wrote:

Except this is complete bollocks, GP's have been unable to give permission for people to drive for over 15 years, the decision on whether someone can drive or not lies purely with DVLA as I can testify from personal experience.

Where the system falls down is that it relies on self referral by the driver, GP's, Ambulance Services, Opticians and hospaitals are not allowed to make referrals to DVLA because of the Data Protection Act ....

This isn't a loophole in the Law, it was a concious decision by politicians "because all drivers are completely honest" (sarcasm off) and it was it cheaper.  There needs a change in the law to require medical professionals to refer people to DVLA but this won't happen because there isn't the political will to do so.

 

Except this is complete bollocks. The UK medical profession has clear guidelines that they are under an obligation to inform DVLA when a patient continues to drive against medical advice, that patient confidentiality is not absolute, and that the public good must take precedence. 

https://www.mddus.com/resources/resource-library/news-digest/2017/april/...

As for the "15 year" nonsense. Doctors have always had the ability to issue medical advice not to drive (don't drive while on this medication...don't drive until 2 weeks after the op)  and there is a raft of government documents issued to the medical profession on assessing various conditions. In the specific case of strokes (as per the post about my father), the clear instruction is not to drive for 4 weeks, ands only resume driving after clearance by your doctor. There is no requirement on an individual to notify DVLA of a stroke, so the decision rests totally with the doctor.

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
7 likes

Just comparing the response to this incident, where no-one seems to be blaming the driver, with the cyclist/pedestrian incident in London, where everyone is blaming the cyclist, despite the fact that the pedestrian ran out in front of him at a pedestrian crossing where the lights were green for the cyclist and red for the pedestrian.

It's true; if you're a cyclist you're automatically guilty.

I do so hope the government investigation into cyclists killing pedestrians will be looking into cases like that, where it is entirely the pedestrian's fault.

Avatar
grahamTDF replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
2 likes

burtthebike wrote:

Just comparing the response to this incident, where no-one seems to be blaming the driver, with the cyclist/pedestrian incident in London, where everyone is blaming the cyclist, despite the fact that the pedestrian ran out in front of him at a pedestrian crossing where the lights were green for the cyclist and red for the pedestrian.

It's true; if you're a cyclist you're automatically guilty.

I do so hope the government investigation into cyclists killing pedestrians will be looking into cases like that, where it is entirely the pedestrian's fault.

Fleeing the scene is never a good look

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 5 years ago
2 likes

Jesus wept, looked down, picked up a gun then shot himself in the head.

Literally what do you have to do in this country to get punished for almost killing a cyclist?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to EddyBerckx | 5 years ago
1 like

StoopidUserName wrote:

Jesus wept, looked down, picked up a gun then shot himself in the head. Literally what do you have to do in this country to get punished for almost killing a cyclist?

If the driver's medical condition was unforseeable, then I fail to see any benefit in bringing charges against him.

He voluntarily relinquished his license and didn't attempt to flee the scene, so I'm inclined to believe him unless some other evidence is uncovered.

Avatar
EddyBerckx replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
3 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

Jesus wept, looked down, picked up a gun then shot himself in the head. Literally what do you have to do in this country to get punished for almost killing a cyclist?

If the driver's medical condition was unforseeable, then I fail to see any benefit in bringing charges against him.

He voluntarily relinquished his license and didn't attempt to flee the scene, so I'm inclined to believe him unless some other evidence is uncovered.

Amazing how quick the police can get medical specialists to carry out the tests and back up his claim. Possibly the most efficient police force in the country despite the much publicised cuts to their budget.

Avatar
EddyBerckx replied to EddyBerckx | 5 years ago
5 likes
StoopidUserName wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

Jesus wept, looked down, picked up a gun then shot himself in the head. Literally what do you have to do in this country to get punished for almost killing a cyclist?

If the driver's medical condition was unforseeable, then I fail to see any benefit in bringing charges against him.

He voluntarily relinquished his license and didn't attempt to flee the scene, so I'm inclined to believe him unless some other evidence is uncovered.

Amazing how quick the police can get medical specialists to carry out the tests and back up his claim. Possibly the most efficient police force in the country despite the much publicised cuts to their budget.

Alternatively, "I had a medical episode " is the new "Sun was in my eyes".

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to EddyBerckx | 5 years ago
2 likes

StoopidUserName wrote:
StoopidUserName wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

StoopidUserName wrote:

Jesus wept, looked down, picked up a gun then shot himself in the head. Literally what do you have to do in this country to get punished for almost killing a cyclist?

If the driver's medical condition was unforseeable, then I fail to see any benefit in bringing charges against him.

He voluntarily relinquished his license and didn't attempt to flee the scene, so I'm inclined to believe him unless some other evidence is uncovered.

Amazing how quick the police can get medical specialists to carry out the tests and back up his claim. Possibly the most efficient police force in the country despite the much publicised cuts to their budget.

Alternatively, "I had a medical episode " is the new "Sun was in my eyes".

Except for handing in your driving license and being examined at a hospital.

Avatar
brooksby | 5 years ago
1 like

Quote:

Police initially detained the driver, but he was not arrested.

“He was in the back of the police car and when I went over to give my details to the police, he jumped out and started screaming at me,” said Lennon. “It was surreal.”

Didn't seem so ill, then, if that's accurate.

Does "sneezing" count as "unforseen medical episode", I wonder...?

Latest Comments