Jason MacIntyre (RIP)

Earthbound

This weeks Cycling Weekly reports on the court case following Jason's tragic death earlier this year on page 24.

It seems the defense 'lawyer' claimed that the defendant 'simply didn't see' the cyclist coming, yet in his next breath the 'lawyer' states that the defendant said the cyclist 'was not wearing hi-viz clothing' AND 'was riding in a hunkered down position' - How did the defendant know Jason was hunkered down if his main pathetic defense was 'he didn't see the cyclist'

Total contradiction, total lies. The 'lawyer' had obviously advised that all the defendant had to say was 'I didn't see the cyclist' and he couldn't ber charged with dangerous driving.

The biggest obstacle to 'justice' in this country is - 'lawyers'

downfader

Very sad but a little common now. The hiviz comment is besides the point imo as you'd notice that after the accident, but the positioning is something you would obviously notice BEFORE. :?

From what I read of this before it seems the driver made a cruddy decision thinking he had time - perhaps a rushed decision.

I once got in an argument with a driver at work over hiviz. He said the law should be changed to force all cyclists to wear them. I said "Funny, maybe you drivers should wear them when you get out of your car and cross the road?"

Sadly i think the MacIntyre Jury may well all be drivers and they may possibly side with the defendant as a result. I dont think courts take this into consideration

spen666

downfader wrote:

....
Sadly i think the MacIntyre Jury may well all be drivers and they may possibly side with the defendant as a result. I dont think courts take this into consideration

Was this case not a GUILTY plea?

If so there would be no jury


Not sure on law in Scotland, but careless driving in England is a summary only offence and is tried before a Magistrates Court - ie no jury ( unless it is tried on same indictment as Dangerous driving- in which case it can be heard before a jury

downfader

spen666 wrote:

downfader wrote:

....
Sadly i think the MacIntyre Jury may well all be drivers and they may possibly side with the defendant as a result. I dont think courts take this into consideration

Was this case not a GUILTY plea?

If so there would be no jury


Not sure on law in Scotland, but careless driving in England is a summary only offence and is tried before a Magistrates Court - ie no jury ( unless it is tried on same indictment as Dangerous driving- in which case it can be heard before a jury

TBH I was unaware that a guilty plea had been made. Meant to look this up yesterday but forgot (jaffa cakes were calling and was watching the olympics even though I said I wouldnt :oops: )

I also only thought that a magistrate-only was used for just the less serious crimes like theft/shoplifting, drug use, etc.. Perhaps this has been extended since i first read about it. :?

Interesting.

spen666

downfader wrote:

spen666 wrote:

downfader wrote:

....
Sadly i think the MacIntyre Jury may well all be drivers and they may possibly side with the defendant as a result. I dont think courts take this into consideration

Was this case not a GUILTY plea?

If so there would be no jury


Not sure on law in Scotland, but careless driving in England is a summary only offence and is tried before a Magistrates Court - ie no jury ( unless it is tried on same indictment as Dangerous driving- in which case it can be heard before a jury

TBH I was unaware that a guilty plea had been made. Meant to look this up yesterday but forgot (jaffa cakes were calling and was watching the olympics even though I said I wouldnt :oops: )

I also only thought that a magistrate-only was used for just the less serious crimes like theft/shoplifting, drug use, etc.. Perhaps this has been extended since i first read about it. :?

Interesting.

Careless driving is in the category of less serious offences

McTaggart pleaded guilty to careless driving

downfader

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/j ... ined-17937

£500 for a life. This is why I tell other road users not to rush a decision on the roads. :?

chuckcork

To be consistent maybe they should make stabbing someone where they subsequently die a summary offence too. A defence lawyer could say it was merely an unforseen consequence of merely wounding someone lightly, not intending at all to plunge that hunting knife repeatedly into the victims chest at all Your Honour.

Frankly not much difference in consequence from the SMIDNSY, where someone dies as a result, is there?

spen666

chuckcork wrote:

To be consistent maybe they should make stabbing someone where they subsequently die a summary offence too. A defence lawyer could say it was merely an unforseen consequence of merely wounding someone lightly, not intending at all to plunge that hunting knife repeatedly into the victims chest at all Your Honour.

Frankly not much difference in consequence from the SMIDNSY, where someone dies as a result, is there?

apart from in one case you are deliberately stabbing someone whereas in the other you are not deliberately injuring/ killing someone

apart from that minor discrepancy .....

Cunobelin

We had a colleague who used to raant about HiViz, until we pointed out...........


HiViz tends to be yellow - so are the lines along the access road, and the speed camera.. Drivers cannot see big yellow lines along the side of the road or the speed camera - what makes you think they will see a yellow jacket?