SNEEZING COULD BE A DEFENCE IF........

In my years on the bench I have heard the most ludicrous reasons put forward by unrepresented {and occasionally by advocates as per their clients` instructions} defendants as to why this or that motoring offence was not their fault and that the matter should go forward for trial.  And during such trials when the facts were presented one`s credulity was often strained.  I recollect the cab driver accused of using a mobile phone whilst driving telling us that his doctor had suggested that subsequent to his attack of Bells Palsy which caused some facial paralysis .....to the driver; not the doctor.........massaging his cheek with a firm object would be as good as physiotherapy.  He even had medical confirmation of the diagnosis but not the weird self application of this unusual medical advice.  Needless to say his defence was not considered credible.  But there are some occasions when physiological anomalies can be of assistance to a defence of a momentary lapse of concentration.

A phrase often used to describe an experience almost too rapid  to register is "in the blink of an eye".  

Fact: the duration of a  blink is 0.1 to 0.4 seconds or 100 to 400 milliseconds. 
Fact: it is impossible to sneeze without the eyes blinking.   
Fact: at 60MPH a vehicle travels 88 feet per second.  

Therefore a driver at that speed during a sneeze will travel a distance between 9 feet and 36 feet  or over 8 metres with his/her eyes closed. All else being equal it would seem to me that such a defence if appropriate to a situation initiating the charge  is almost irrefutable.Unfortunately for this man such facts were overwhelmed by other considerations.