Jason MacIntyre - verdict

il_principe

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/jason-macintyre-death-driver-suspended-and-fined-17937

F*cking DISGRACE. Should at least have got some jail time. Next time I want to get a way with murder I'm just gonna hire a car...

pete dutton

It's really annoying when somebody can snuff out a young mans life and receive such a pathetic sentence, maybe the driver should have nicked a few pieces of art from the filthy rich and then the legal system that protects the ruling classes would come down on him with the appropriate sentence. 11 years for nicking artwork from a few capitalist ponces shows exactly where the judicial system prioritises the " punishment " handed down to those who dare to rob from them, but dismisses a persons life as not as important as valubles :x

Captain Fagor

Words fail me. Very poor show. Hopefully karma catches up with the driver sometime soon.

BBC has more....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/hig ... 547324.stm

hugo15

chuckcork

On the pecking order of road users it's pretty clear that cyclists are so close to the bottom that killing one attracts minimal sanction. You'd like get more of a penalty for failing to tax your vehicle than you would in using that same vehicle to kill someone.

It would take a brace of QC's and High Court Judges to be knocked off their bikes by chav's for the courts to do more than offer token punishments to dangerous, sorry, careless drivers. Of course, that's if they can get out of their Merc's.

No wonder so many drivers are so careless in their attitude to cyclists, this judgement sends a pretty clear message that they don't have to be.

We can only hope that an appeal is made by the prosecution against such a pathetic sentence, though it would seem they would lack even that much backbone.

bilbo.baggins

Some more detail on how the 'public prosecutor' interpreted the situation in this article.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... _court.php

spen666

chuckcork wrote:

....

No wonder so many drivers are so careless in their attitude to cyclists, this judgement sends a pretty clear message that they don't have to be.

We can only hope that an appeal is made by the prosecution against such a pathetic sentence, though it would seem they would lack even that much backbone.

The sentence is perfectly in accordance with sentencing guidelines for the OFFENCE

Driver was only convicted of careless driving. Judge is not allowed on sentencing to take into account the fatality- only the driving standard. That is what parliament require


Its not the sentence that is at fault. Its the offence convicted of that is the issue

drewfromrisca

I thought the maximum sentence was 5 years???

chuckcork

spen666 wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

....

No wonder so many drivers are so careless in their attitude to cyclists, this judgement sends a pretty clear message that they don't have to be.

We can only hope that an appeal is made by the prosecution against such a pathetic sentence, though it would seem they would lack even that much backbone.

The sentence is perfectly in accordance with sentencing guidelines for the OFFENCE

Driver was only convicted of careless driving. Judge is not allowed on sentencing to take into account the fatality- only the driving standard. That is what parliament require


Its not the sentence that is at fault. Its the offence convicted of that is the issue

That is kind of like having a firearms offense that makes firing a gun an offence, but not killing someone as a consequence. So you could let off a machine gun at a crowd maybe kill a few people, then state "oops forgot the safety catch was off!" and be let off with a warning to be more careful about that next time?

You couldn't walk down the street with a batteaxe swinging and expect to explain away injury to others as being an unintended consequence of their not looking where they're going, could you? (Not for cutting heads off my Lord, just going to cut down a tree, interily legal usage of said Battleaxe)

Why are large heavy objects like motor vehicles, which could be described as a kinetic energy weapons albeit at a different scale to firearms, allowed to be used in such a negilgent manner when any other large heavy kinetic object could not be used the same way with legal disregard for the consequences?

markos1963

spen666 wrote:

chuckcork wrote:

....

No wonder so many drivers are so careless in their attitude to cyclists, this judgement sends a pretty clear message that they don't have to be.

We can only hope that an appeal is made by the prosecution against such a pathetic sentence, though it would seem they would lack even that much backbone.

The sentence is perfectly in accordance with sentencing guidelines for the OFFENCE

Driver was only convicted of careless driving. Judge is not allowed on sentencing to take into account the fatality- only the driving standard. That is what parliament require


Its not the sentence that is at fault. Its the offence convicted of that is the issue

We have had this discussion many times. I am sorry to bring it up again but here we go. Its another case of the legal profession(police,cps and judges included) downgrading the charges to secure convictions rather than take the risk of going for the more appropriate charge. As usual the victims and their families are left out of the process and are denied proper justice. In fact victims are viewed as an inconvenience, its their own fault that they got involved so why let them into the legal process.
As a previous poster has said, property of the rich and famous is more important than the life of a minortiy road user. Just beware all of us out there, we give up our rights when we swing our legs over the top tube.

NWLondoner

Sadly the Judge's hands were tied. He could only issue a sentence for the crime that he was found guilty of.

Yet again the authorities are so scared (or don't want the expense) of securing the higher and proper conviction.

Until both the authorities and public at large change their opinions regarding the potential lethal consequences of dangerous driving nothing will change.

Everyone seems to think that it is their RIGHT to drive a vehicle. It is NOT!! It is a privilege once you have passed your test and proved that you meet the minimum standard. Sadly too many people think once they have passed they will have it for life.

Personally I think they should bring in automatic retests for EVERY driver at 10 year intervals.

nick hanson

I was rather puzzled that the driver claimed to have not seen Jason,but then the driver's legal representative said that Jason was riding in a tuck position,making a smaller area,ie less visible.
How the F**k can he claim to have not seen the rider,then to be able to say that the rider was in a tucked position?.
The first excuse was that Jason was riding on the cycle lane,and should have stopped at the side Junction.
Has it now been admitted that Jason was actually on the main road,with priority over the van driver?.
Lets face it,Jason's family would never have got justice,as this would have set a precident that every time you get into a motor vehicle & drive it,You would have to be wholy responsible for your actions.
Considering that just about everyone in the legal profession probably drives,then they aren't going to risk jailing themselves,for what they will regard as a momentary lapse of concentration,are they? :evil:

chuckcork

The bizarre thing is that if death was caused by some other method like train crashes, air crashes, ships sinking etc and considered acceptable, there would be a public outcry, calls for action, millions or billions spent to improve safety for the travelling public and so on. Equip one of the leading cause of death in the UK the internal combustion engine and pass it into the imprecise control of relatively unskilled members of the public though and the response is do nothing?

I think the problem is that society in general finds the level of death on the roads as a generally acceptable price to pay for the convienence of being able to drive wherever they want, whenever they want.

Those who decide to flought the rules are "bad apples" who might upset the system, but the majority or motorists are "law abiding", so why should the system be changed for a problem caused by the few?

If it wasn't then why otherwise would it be accepted that deaths occur with basically nothing done to counter them? Its not as if the technology for things like black boxes for cars, that could be analysed in the event of a crash to work out the chain of events that caused the crash in the first place, doesn't exist.

But then the auto industry were against seat belts too, so don't hold your breath.

nwallace

Causing Death by Careless or Inconsiderate Driving should be implemented in Scots law within months according to today's Sunday post.

BUICK

Chuckcork +1

This outcome is absolutely heartbreaking

el_presidente

I remember seeing a New Zealand national paper that every day, on the front page, published the roads death toll the previous day. Road Safety was quite big thing in NZ I think, you can drive a car there at 14 I think and loads of kids get killed.

I would like to see a similar thing in the UK. If say The Independent (who would be most likely to do it I would expect) just had a black bordered box every day with "8 killed yesterday"; "5 killed yesterday"; "10 killed yesterday"...etc etc it might make people think somewhat.

spen666

too few people would notice if it was in the Independent

like the idea though- perhaps we should try to get EVERY national/ local paper to do this. Local ones could give totals in their regions

beverick

el_presidente wrote:

I remember seeing a New Zealand national paper that every day, on the front page, published the roads death toll the previous day. Road Safety was quite big thing in NZ I think, you can drive a car there at 14 I think and loads of kids get killed.

I would like to see a similar thing in the UK. If say The Independent (who would be most likely to do it I would expect) just had a black bordered box every day with "8 killed yesterday"; "5 killed yesterday"; "10 killed yesterday"...etc etc it might make people think somewhat.

You mean like the impact of big black "Smoking Kills" signs on cigarette packets has had on the number of people smoking.....

(That would be little or none by the way....)

Bob

Ambermile

beverick wrote:

You mean like the impact of big black "Smoking Kills" signs on cigarette packets has had on the number of people smoking.....

(That would be little or none by the way....)

Bob

I dont know - the "Kills those around you" one got to me eventually and I stopped after 33 years 8)

Arthur