Jason MacIntyre's dead!

simon_e

The original article is here in the Sunday Mail.

Burghley

Hi

Terrible news.

I notice elsewhere on Bikeradar that the driver of the vehicle is denying responsibility for the collision.

I suggest he looks at Section 206 of the Highway Code, where it clearly states "Drive carefully and slowly when....needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement"

Will there be a prosecution?

Rgds

Pete

heavymental

I'm sure it'll all become clear sooner or later but I find it surprising that a top TTer would be using a bike lane as seems to be suggested currently. The bike lanes i'm familiar with aren't really suitable for serious training.

Anyway. We'll have to wait to find out what really happened I guess.

dave_1

It's all speculation at the moment.....should this person, before the procurator fiscal report is complete, be allowed to lay responsibility on the deceased who is no longer here to defend against what's claimed?

flattythehurdler

Of course he's denying responsiblility. He might get fined £150 if he's found guilty.

nwallace

Burghley wrote:

I suggest he looks at Section 206 of the Highway Code, where it clearly states "Drive carefully and slowly when....needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement"

Will there be a prosecution?

S206: Depends on whether the access to the council depot is a driveway or if it is built as a standard T-Junction.
At a drive way, the access crosses the pavement/cycle track.
At a T-Junction the road interrupts the pavement/cycle track, Stop, Look, Listen, Think etc

As for the last question that is up to the Fiscals office, if Criminal proceedings don't take place then a Fatal Accident Inquiry may be called.


A bit of Info from a Local:
The van was a council van and the accident took place where the cycle track crosses a road into a Highland Council depot and offices. There are Give Way signs on the cycle track where it crosses the road.

There is an effectively a busy entrance to a small industrial estate with vehicles going in and out all day. The cycle runs along parallel to the main road - basically a wider pavement. It seems very illogical to expect cycles to be able to come along there without slowing and expect traffic turning on and off the main road to stop for them especially as there are very few bicycles using the cycle track.

dave_1

nwallace wrote:

Burghley wrote:

I suggest he looks at Section 206 of the Highway Code, where it clearly states "Drive carefully and slowly when....needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement"

Will there be a prosecution?

S206: Depends on whether the access to the council depot is a driveway or if it is built as a standard T-Junction.
At a drive way, the access crosses the pavement/cycle track.
At a T-Junction the road interrupts the pavement/cycle track, Stop, Look, Listen, Think etc

As for the last question that is up to the Fiscals office, if Criminal proceedings don't take place then a Fatal Accident Inquiry may be called.


A bit of Info from a Local:
The van was a council van and the accident took place where the cycle track crosses a road into a Highland Council depot and offices. There are Give Way signs on the cycle track where it crosses the road.

There is an effectively a busy entrance to a small industrial estate with vehicles going in and out all day. The cycle runs along parallel to the main road - basically a wider pavement. It seems very illogical to expect cycles to be able to come along there without slowing and expect traffic turning on and off the main road to stop for them especially as there are very few bicycles using the cycle track.

the cyclist, assuming he was paying attention-logically he must have assumed it was safe to cross...therefore questions should be asked about how the van got there to that spot...did the van appear to give way then not because it hadn't seen the cyclist, or was the van approaching so quickly that it was unexpected by the cyclist? We can ask questions of the driver , not only the cyclist...the issues is also whether it was a front or side collision as a front collision means the driver should have seen the cyclist and if not, why not? Anyway, this is all probably prejudicial...but I've only seen the drivers side put out in the media, as well as the local source you refer to in your posting...Jas Mac must have assumed it was safe to cross if he was paying attention and had no earphones in...this raises questions about the driver's approach to the junction, onto it, no? Look how rapidly one can decelerate from 80 mph down to 30mph...a car can be on you before you know it... it is higly abnormal for a cyclist to ride obliviously over a junction without checking...an experienced cyclist...I don't accept yet that the cyclist was responsible

dbg

My gut instinct - the guy saw Jas Mac but completely misjudged the cyclists speed - but then shouldn't Jas Mac have been slowing, knowing he was crossing a junction? strange and tragic.

dave_1

dbg wrote:

My gut instinct - the guy saw Jas Mac but completely misjudged the cyclists speed - but then shouldn't Jas Mac have been slowing, knowing he was crossing a junction? strange and tragic.

That would mean the driver is telling telling lies when he says he didn't see Jas Mac. the driver may well be able to make up his own version with no witness to challenge his version e.g. speed on coming across the junction... I find it hard to believe that Jas Mac cycled into the side of the van and died there...my guess is he was mowed down from the front. But we only have the driver's word...which is not enough.. We've no way to tell how this driver behaves on roads...was he a fast driver? Was he on the handsfree?

nwallace

Dave_1 wrote:

I find it hard to believe that Jas Mac cycled into the side of the van and died there...

I don't, but believe it unlikely.
If he was on the cycle path, and he was doing TT speeds, and he had his head down, and misjudged the junction or what the council vehicle was doing (if he had seen it).
If there is nothing around to signal to then there is no need to signal, if the council driver genuinely didn't see that the cycle path was in use and no other vehicles were around he would have had no reason to indicate. That would still involve a failure from the cyclist to give way when instructed to.

nick hanson

As others have said,I find it VERY hard to believe that a rider such as JM would have been using the cycle path.
If he felt that the traffic situation warranted using the cycle lane,then he would,as an experienced cyclist,have slowed for the hazzards?
I do still think that if Jason ended up in line with the cycle lane,on the ground,he would have been thrown there due to the forward momentum of the Council vehicle.
If the previous post regarding the highway code is correct,then surely,the very least the Council can do,is to sack the driver on the grounds of gross misconduct,& for bringing the Council into disrepute,as one of their employees :?:

pedalpower

So the driver seems to be saying that Jason was coming from the same direction he'd been going along the A-road? It does sound odd but I suppose we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Do we know if he was on a road/TT bike? If he was on a MTB perhaps he might have been on the cycle path.

Anonymous

I've set this e-bay auction up...

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 0218368403

Hopefully raise some cash for the family, even if through people clicking on the link rather than bidding...

Mike Healey

It has been reported on another forum that a female member of Jason's club said on local radio that the cycle path was being worked on and that there were piles of stuff on the path.

And that she would never use the path for training and she wasn't a national champion

The driver's comments sound like a self-justifying smidsy to me

Richrd2205

The piece you referred to was a Lesley Riddoch show on Radio Scotland about cycling with Anthony from City Cycling & some hilarious phone in respondents. It should still be on the BBC iPlayer. I'd posted a link in Cake stop & Campaign prior to the piece being broadcast.

dave_1

Mike Healey wrote:

It has been reported on another forum that a female member of Jason's club said on local radio that the cycle path was being worked on and that there were piles of stuff on the path.

And that she would never use the path for training and she wasn't a national champion

The driver's comments sound like a self-justifying smidsy to me

the driver should be silenced for now...no responsible newspaper or television should allow the driver the chance to put responsibility on the rider killed by his van/car/..especially as we are being asked to believe a dubious version of events...in effect he's asking us to believe Jason Mac, so experienced and familiar with the roads there I would assume...just rides across a junction with head down.... I don't believe Jason Mac would do that...do you routinely do that? I never did,.. he was so experienced...the driver did something unexpected IMO

dave_1

Driver facing charges .


http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Articl ... ?UserKey=0
[/list]

phil s

Hopefully justice will prevail. There was something very iffy about the driver's story

dave_1

phil s wrote:

Hopefully justice will prevail. There was something very iffy about the driver's story

indeed..... A Neil Williams tipper lorry type thing killed a cyclist in Edinburgh a 6 weeks ago, turning left onto road at traffic lights..and I was out the other day cycling and boy did those Neil Williams trucks give me a wide bearth...so most certainly...properly publicised...road users can be scared into giving us space.

I'd be up for placards at roundabouts at the entrance to main cities and towns showing jail sentences without naming person...but showing what's been handed down on that day for killing cyclists just to remind cars/buses/lorries they will do jailtime if they are negligent and the "i didn't see him/her story" won't work".

nwallace

Dave_1 wrote:

"i didn't see him/her story" won't work".

The I didn't see him story is pretty much an admission of carelessness, which is what this driver is charged with.

bug-off

Just for a bit of info as it doesn't appear to have had the same press coverage as the actual accident but it was reported on the local radio that the driver has now pled guilty to careless driving - no details on punishment but likely to be fine and points on driving licence. Still not much compensation to the family but at least there has been a conviction.

grantus

Sorry to go over old ground but I saw this thread today as it had received a recent post.

I want to echo what other people wrote at the time of the accident about the guy basically blaming the dead man in the national press two days after the accident.

I couldn't believe what I was reading at the time. It was a total self-pitying bodyswerve of any responsibility.

If he had any decency he'd have offered a simple no comment to the papers.

I was disgusted at the time I read it. I hope he gets the book thrown at him but he wont.

Just like the twat that mowed down the young girl in Aylesbury on his bike.

It is a reflection on the state of this country that crimes involving defrauding the treasury of money carry punishment 100 times stiffer than causing someone's death due to extreme negligence/arrogance/stupidity.

If this guy didn't pay his car tax or tv license fee he'd get a stronger punishment than for killing someone in his car. It beggars belief. I know we can all be careless at times when driving and 'there but for the grace of God' and all that but the guy's antics blabbing to the press really turned me against him

dave_1

grantus wrote:

Sorry to go over old ground but I saw this thread today as it had received a recent post.

I want to echo what other people wrote at the time of the accident about the guy basically blaming the dead man in the national press two days after the accident.

I couldn't believe what I was reading at the time. It was a total self-pitying bodyswerve of any responsibility.

If he had any decency he'd have offered a simple no comment to the papers.

I was disgusted at the time I read it. I hope he gets the book thrown at him but he wont.

Just like the fool that mowed down the young girl in Aylesbury on his bike.

It is a reflection on the state of this country that crimes involving defrauding the treasury of money carry punishment 100 times stiffer than causing someone's death due to extreme negligence/arrogance/stupidity.

If this guy didn't pay his car tax or tv license fee he'd get a stronger punishment than for killing someone in his car. It beggars belief. I know we can all be careless at times when driving and 'there but for the grace of God' and all that but the guy's antics blabbing to the press really turned me against him

I think his wreckless driving shows his contempt for the life, the safety, of other road users and he should do a stretch in jail for his attitiude to the well being of fellow road users.

pedalpower

Dave_1 wrote:

grantus wrote:

Sorry to go over old ground but I saw this thread today as it had received a recent post.

I want to echo what other people wrote at the time of the accident about the guy basically blaming the dead man in the national press two days after the accident.

I couldn't believe what I was reading at the time. It was a total self-pitying bodyswerve of any responsibility.

If he had any decency he'd have offered a simple no comment to the papers.

I was disgusted at the time I read it. I hope he gets the book thrown at him but he wont.

Just like the fool that mowed down the young girl in Aylesbury on his bike.

It is a reflection on the state of this country that crimes involving defrauding the treasury of money carry punishment 100 times stiffer than causing someone's death due to extreme negligence/arrogance/stupidity.

If this guy didn't pay his car tax or tv license fee he'd get a stronger punishment than for killing someone in his car. It beggars belief. I know we can all be careless at times when driving and 'there but for the grace of God' and all that but the guy's antics blabbing to the press really turned me against him

I think his wreckless driving shows his contempt for the life, the safety, of other road users and he should do a stretch in jail for his attitiude to the well being of fellow road users.

I think there are probably good reasons why driving without car tax or not paying income tax carry a hefty penalty. Its a difficult thing to catch people for and therefore the penalty needs to be large to still deter people from trying it. The inverse of huge lottery prizes.
While I can sometimes feel sorry for people who kill through negligence (for many living with it must be terrible punishment in itself) it is probably also another area (one of few) where there is a genuine detterence value to stiff penalties.

pedalpower

The driver has got off with a small fine and a six month ban. I'm not into calls for hideous vengeance but this really is ridiculous if, as has been suggested, Macintyre was agreed to be riding on the road in the opposite direction and the driver just drove into him. Does anyone have any knowledge of what happened with the whole legal case? Was there a deal and if so why?

mididoctors

pedalpower wrote:

The driver has got off with a small fine and a six month ban. I'm not into calls for hideous vengeance but this really is ridiculous if, as has been suggested, Macintyre was agreed to be riding on the road in the opposite direction and the driver just drove into him. Does anyone have any knowledge of what happened with the whole legal case? Was there a deal and if so why?

let me get this straight.. its agreed by all sides Jason was traveling in the opposite direction on the other side of the road?

is that correct?

pedalpower

I don't know myself but This was posted elsewhere on here:

"BE IN NO DOUBT. THE CYCLIST WAS ON THE ROAD.

There are witnesses to support this fact.

This was clearly stated in court and was not disputed by the solicitor of the driver.

The cyclist and the driver were on a straight section of the A82.

The weather was dry and bright.

The cyclist was heading south and the driver was heading north.

The cyclist would have been visibile to a COMPETENT driver for between 16 and 20 seconds.

But this driver says he did not see him...."

dave_1

this is a terrible verdict. The killer driver should be in a jail cell for a few years. WHo is the judge? Time these numpty judges got blacklisted as they are not fit to make these judgements...petrolheads themselves no doubt!

robmanic1

I'm going to fly in the face of popular forum opinion on this one;

First and foremost, a complete tragedy to ALL concerned

Stiffer sentencing will not (imo) lead to fewer of these types of incidents (you don't drive along thinking "hey, it's ok if I don't concentrate today, if I kill anyone I'll only get a fine and some points"

Better driver training in the early stages is the key, include some "cyclist awareness" training, even put trainee drivers on a bike, let them get a view from the cyclists perspective.

I know some of you will lynch me for this, but it's all getting a bit "Daily Mail" on here (emotions running high I guess).

top_bhoy

Robmanic1 wrote:

I'm going to fly in the face of popular forum opinion on this one;

First and foremost, a complete tragedy to ALL concerned

Stiffer sentencing will not (imo) lead to fewer of these types of incidents (you don't drive along thinking "hey, it's ok if I don't concentrate today, if I kill anyone I'll only get a fine and some points"

Better driver training in the early stages is the key, include some "cyclist awareness" training, even put trainee drivers on a bike, let them get a view from the cyclists perspective.

I know some of you will lynch me for this, but it's all getting a bit "Daily Mail" on here (emotions running high I guess).

You're completely wrong. For the family of the deceased its a tragedy, its hardly that for the convicted driver.

I appreciate under the present rules, not more could be done by the judge in this case but where is the deterrant factor in this sentence - not from the individual drivers viewpoint but highlighting to the public at large that driving in such a careless and inattentive manner has personal consequences.