Death on the roads.

dreamlx10

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edi ... 660564.stm

And so it goes on, another nutter gets away with killing a cyclist !

ExeterSimon

Can't say I'm surprised.

But I will be surprised the day someone gets put away for a lengthy sentence for killing a cyclist/pedestrian/motorist when speeding, lying, driving like a tw@.

The Rookie

Not sure of the relevance of it being a cyclist though, he was on the wrong side of the road, could have been any road user......

Simon

oscarbudgie

Sheriff Craig McSherry told him: "Had you been driving at a reckless speed you would be facing a charge of reckless driving.

"This quite obviously had a terrible outcome for the family of the accused, but in saying that, I do not believe the level of carelessness is substantial enough to merit a sentence of imprisonment."

Unbefuckingleivable

graeme_s-2

I understand that judges aren't currently able to pass such sentences, but I'd like to see much longer driving bans for causing death by careless/dangerous driving. Like a mandatory lifetime ban for death by dangerous driving, and a 1 year ban with a suspended lifetime ban for death by careless driving that will come into affect should they pick up much more than a speeding ticket.

When some people are unable to do something like drive a car without killing somebody, through their carelessness or recklessness, then maybe as a society we shouldn't let these people drive any more.

I'm not convinced that longer custodial sentences are really the answer, but I would like to see more of these people permanently removed from our roads.

ride_whenever

I don't think that causing a death should immediately warrant a lifetime ban, it's such a knee-jerk reaction, sentencing is dependant on the offence not the outcome.

This is a tragic case, but if the defendant has merely flipped his car into the side of the road rather than going through another human being and tragically ending his life then would you be calling for it. This guy is clearly a bit of a pr*ck but there was no malice in his actions.

That said, people who use their cars as weapons should be hung drawn and quartered, that would certainly curb their activity.

Headhuunter

ride_whenever wrote:

I don't think that causing a death should immediately warrant a lifetime ban, it's such a knee-jerk reaction, sentencing is dependant on the offence not the outcome.

This is a tragic case, but if the defendant has merely flipped his car into the side of the road rather than going through another human being and tragically ending his life then would you be calling for it. This guy is clearly a bit of a pr*ck but there was no malice in his actions.

That said, people who use their cars as weapons should be hung drawn and quartered, that would certainly curb their activity.

Simply because there was no malice in his actions doesn't mean he should get away with such a light sentence. I got hit by an idiot driver last Nov. I was taken to hospital etc. He simply turned right across my path and I slammed into the side of him. He seemed very nice on the phone and asked if I was OK etc (although didn't actually apologise at any point). There was clearly no malice in his actions yet he was clearly a danger on the roads and was not paying attantion whilst at the wheel. Peope like this need to be removed from the roads

graeme_s-2

ride_whenever wrote:

I don't think that causing a death should immediately warrant a lifetime ban, it's such a knee-jerk reaction, sentencing is dependant on the offence not the outcome.

If causing 1 death doesn't necessarily warrant a lifetime ban, then how many deaths do you think is an acceptable number for one individual driver to be responsible for before their actions would warrant a lifetime ban?

tarquin_foxglove

How does...

Accident investigators found tyre marks and skid marks which indicated McKay had been driving on the wrong side of the road, and had lost control.

Louise Ward, prosecuting, said post-accident analysis showed McKay had been doing up to 60mph on the unclassified Grange Road, Dunfermline, which has a limit of 40mph.

=

Sheriff Craig McSherry told him: "I do not believe the level of carelessness is substantial enough to merit a sentence of imprisonment."

and then he couldn't have given him a much lower sentence (page 15).

ride_whenever

Well lets look at the other side, you're riding along at a good lick and, whilst checking over your shoulder, you crash into a pedestrian who you hadn't seen, killing them. Should you be banned from riding a bicycle? No, it's a tragic accident, intent is important because it underpins your actions.

Yes people should be very careful, in everything they do, but it is about reasonable punishment.

As for headhunters point, most of us have been hit at some point, I've been hit twice and run off the road twice. The times i've been hit, the first was my fault as I was filtering, the second a car pulled across the road into me but it wasn't serious, she didn't see me as it was twilight and hence my lights probably weren't bright enough. These are careless and certainly would warrant their licenses being revoked, even if i'd been killed they are in the same category as an accident at work, tragic, but likely to happen at some point.

Aggressive reckless driving, using a car as a weapon should be furnished with an instant lifetime ban as that indicates a certain malice that is not appropriate on the roads. Carelessness is part of being human and is bound to happen at some point, it is a matter of probablilities.

The Rookie

Graeme_S wrote:

If causing 1 death doesn't necessarily warrant a lifetime ban, then how many deaths do you think is an acceptable number for one individual driver to be responsible for before their actions would warrant a lifetime ban?

While I understand where you are coming from, its surely the actions resulting in the daeth that are relevant, not the fact that someone was unfourtunatly there to die as a result.

Many people perform a bad right turn (for example) everyday, its surely more relevant to punish them all equally than to punish the one who is unlucky enough to cause a death as well that is saliant, that is how you create a deterant, the likleyhood of getting caught and punished (as it stand you are vanishingly unlikely to get caught unless you kill someone), more road traffic police (well more than now, back to 1997 levels would probably do it) are needed to kerb bad driving before it becomes fatal.

Simon

ride_whenever

oh and on number of deaths, when there is a significant correlation that indicates a systematic failing in their driving.

Headhuunter

ride_whenever wrote:

Well lets look at the other side, you're riding along at a good lick and, whilst checking over your shoulder, you crash into a pedestrian who you hadn't seen, killing them. Should you be banned from riding a bicycle? No, it's a tragic accident, intent is important because it underpins your actions.

Yes people should be very careful, in everything they do, but it is about reasonable punishment.

As for headhunters point, most of us have been hit at some point, I've been hit twice and run off the road twice. The times i've been hit, the first was my fault as I was filtering, the second a car pulled across the road into me but it wasn't serious, she didn't see me as it was twilight and hence my lights probably weren't bright enough. These are careless and certainly would warrant their licenses being revoked, even if i'd been killed they are in the same category as an accident at work, tragic, but likely to happen at some point.

Aggressive reckless driving, using a car as a weapon should be furnished with an instant lifetime ban as that indicates a certain malice that is not appropriate on the roads. Carelessness is part of being human and is bound to happen at some point, it is a matter of probablilities.

I'm not necessarily arguing for a lifetime ban, but a £260 fine or whatever it was hardly seems worth implementing. Part of the point of the sentence to a crime is to make the guilty party to consider their actions and hopefully in a similar situation not do the same thing again. A £260 fine is neither here nor there and is instantly forgettable.

ride_whenever

I agree with that, perhaps a new offence of causing death whilst behind the wheel of a car. The penalty for careless driving should be small, but more rigourously applied, but there then needs to be a second offence for events with a more serious outcome.

Easy to prove and could come with a very wide range of sentances ranging from a 12-month ban up to death by stoning or whatever the equivalent is in the uk... Monetary fines are kindof pointless because they are so easily forgotten, perhaps they should be fixed according to your income, say 10% of your annual income.

tarquin_foxglove

The more you look at the facts, the more the sentence appears to be completely lenient.

According to the report

When police arrived McKay told them Mr Taylor did not have his lights on and had "hit the car".

Which is an "Aggravating Factor", so McKay falls into at least the mid sentencing range of 'Death by Careless Driving'.

That starts at 36 weeks custody, the range allows for a High Community Order if there are mitigating factors but the only one I can see is that he pled guilty.

tarquin_foxglove

Headhuunter wrote:

I'm not necessarily arguing for a lifetime ban, but a £260 fine or whatever it was hardly seems worth implementing. Part of the point of the sentence to a crime is to make the guilty party to consider their actions and hopefully in a similar situation not do the same thing again. A £260 fine is neither here nor there and is instantly forgettable.

The fine was for a breech of the peace...

McKay was also fined £260 after admitting causing a breach of the peace in August 2009.

The court heard he threatened to "smash" a customer with a three-foot steel water key, after his standard of work was questioned.

Limburger

Judges are under direction to pass community sentences where ever possible owing to the fact that the prisons are full. Same reason for the poxy early releases system introduced a few years ago.

If there was capacity to incarcerate this filth then be assured he would be getting acquainted in the showers right now. Unfortunately it is governments policy to reduce the prison population regardless of whether people should be in prison or not.

Not a policy I agree with at all. If people commit a crime which warrants being locked up then so be it. Build some prisons or send them to some empty cells in Russia.

daviesee

Just wanted to say

:oops:

For the double post

Wallace1492

It is about time that people are held responsible for their lack of control in driving. Cars/lorries/busses are extremely dangerous when handled incorrectly, in fact they can be and are lethal weapons. It is appaling that the guy can be out of control of the car, turning it into a lethal weapon, yet gets off with murder (not pre-meditated, we would call it Culpable Homicide here)

If I ran down the street holding out a sword, and someone happened to step into the way, i would rightly be facing a long stretch, so why is this guy not?

It is this "right to drive" and not being in control of a car is an "accident" arttitude that needs to change. This guy is completely, wholly and individually responsible for the death of the cyclist and should be paying a far heavier penalty.

shmo

The Beginner wrote:

While I understand where you are coming from, its surely the actions resulting in the daeth that are relevant, not the fact that someone was unfourtunatly there to die as a result.

Not sure I totally understand this. Are we saying that putting your car through a hedge due to dangerous driving is treated the same whether or not it kills someone during the process? Surely there's a distinction between driving like an idiot on an empty road and doing the same on a road with other traffic?

The Rookie

Well whether or not their is traffic is an aggravating factor, whether or not you hit it is a matter of luck (good or bad) when you loose control.

We used to have a principle in this country of punishing people for their actions, 9and the foreseeable resulst of them) not for incidental occurances, then we introduced death by dangerous for those who were driving dangerously and killed someone, now death by careless, I disagree with it, dangerous is dangerous, careless is careless, we need the right penalty to be imposed (and more often) for the action not the 'random' result of that action.

I may be arguing for more lenainacy in the cases where death has been caused, but more serious punishment *and more serious efforts to punish) those that are lucky enough to have 'got away with it' before their luck runs out.

Simon

Wallace1492

The Beginner wrote:

Well whether or not their is traffic is an aggravating factor, whether or not you hit it is a matter of luck (good or bad) when you loose control.

We used to have a principle in this country of punishing people for their actions, 9and the foreseeable resulst of them) not for incidental occurances, then we introduced death by dangerous for those who were driving dangerously and killed someone, now death by careless, I disagree with it, dangerous is dangerous, careless is careless, we need the right penalty to be imposed (and more often) for the action not the 'random' result of that action.

I may be arguing for more lenainacy in the cases where death has been caused, but more serious punishment *and more serious efforts to punish) those that are lucky enough to have 'got away with it' before their luck runs out.

Simon

Sort of agree, but you virtually cannot get more lenient at the moment for people that cause death!! It beggers belief that this guy does not get death by dangerous driving, was it not dangerous for the cyclist? Who does it have to be dangerous for?

Far too many poor drivers on the roads. Lets get tough.

Mike Healey

I am simply baffled by the idea that driving at 60mph in a 40mph area, on the wrong side of the road does not constitue reckless driving.

Any experts on scottish law on the forum?

zanes

Mike Healey wrote:

I am simply baffled by the idea that driving at 60mph in a 40mph area, on the wrong side of the road does not constitue reckless driving.

+1. It is this that's the problem here, not the law(s).

Eau Rouge

The Beginner wrote:

dangerous is dangerous, careless is careless,

They are badly named, they do not refer to "driving dangerously" and "driving carelessly" because ALL driving is dangerous, yet nobody ever even vaguely thinks they might be about to have a crash, die or kill someone when they get in a car. They instead mean driving below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver and driving far below that standard.
In practice, most of what we call "careless" driving is all but ignored unless it involves serious injury or large cost, "dangerous" driving is tried as careless driving, and only the worst driving results in a dangerous driving charge. They all appear to take the view that no driver wants to have an accident or is even trying to not avoid having an accident if possible, not even the worst cases that get tried as dangerous driving, hence they have relatively low sentences.
If it's clear enough that even in court a jury would agree that the driver's intentions were to actually have an accident they would be tried on a non-driving charge, like GBH or even murder, but it really needs to be beyond obvious. Almost anything happening on the road itself, no matter how clear to those involved, won't get a conviction in court as anything other than a driving offence, with its built in assumption of a lack of intent and therefore lesser sentence.

antfly

I`m not sure the people who don`t think he got off lightly can have read it properly.

"Louise Ward, prosecuting, said post-accident analysis showed McKay had been doing up to 60mph on the unclassified Grange Road, Dunfermline, which has a limit of 40mph.

Sheriff Craig McSherry told him: "Had you been driving at a reckless speed you would be facing a charge of reckless driving.

"This quite obviously had a terrible outcome for the family of the accused, but in saying that, I do not believe the level of carelessness is substantial enough to merit a sentence of imprisonment."

The judge just isn`t making any sense how is that not reckless speed? I hope the prosecution appeals. Oh and the killer is a dead ringer for Frankenstein`s monster.

Eau Rouge

antfly wrote:

I`m not sure the people who don`t think he got off lightly can have read it properly.

"Louise Ward, prosecuting, said post-accident analysis showed McKay had been doing up to 60mph on the unclassified Grange Road, Dunfermline, which has a limit of 40mph.

Sheriff Craig McSherry told him: "Had you been driving at a reckless speed you would be facing a charge of reckless driving.

"This quite obviously had a terrible outcome for the family of the accused, but in saying that, I do not believe the level of carelessness is substantial enough to merit a sentence of imprisonment."

The judge just isn`t making any sense how is that not reckless speed? I hope the prosecution appeals. Oh and the killer is a dead ringer for Frankenstein`s monster.

He got off massively lightly, but where is the evidence that it was reckless speed? The speed limit in itself tells us nothing. It doesn't tell us what would be a safe maximum speed.

He lost control and crashed and that, by my personal definition, is evidence he was driving too fast, but its not evidence that is accepted in court and you didn't say that anyway.
Anyone know why he lost control and crashed?

dilemna

Where's Spen666 when he's needed ?

antfly

Eau Rouge wrote:

He got off massively lightly, but where is the evidence that it was reckless speed? The speed limit in itself tells us nothing. It doesn't tell us what would be a safe maximum speed.

He lost control and crashed and that, by my personal definition, is evidence he was driving too fast, but its not evidence that is accepted in court and you didn't say that anyway.Anyone know why he lost control and crashed?

I`m just quoting the prosecution, there was no need for me to state the obvious, but if that isn`t accepted as evidence of reckless speed then I would like to know what is.

daviesee

Eau Rouge wrote:

antfly wrote:

I`m not sure the people who don`t think he got off lightly can have read it properly.

"Louise Ward, prosecuting, said post-accident analysis showed McKay had been doing up to 60mph on the unclassified Grange Road, Dunfermline, which has a limit of 40mph.

Sheriff Craig McSherry told him: "Had you been driving at a reckless speed you would be facing a charge of reckless driving.

"This quite obviously had a terrible outcome for the family of the accused, but in saying that, I do not believe the level of carelessness is substantial enough to merit a sentence of imprisonment."

The judge just isn`t making any sense how is that not reckless speed? I hope the prosecution appeals. Oh and the killer is a dead ringer for Frankenstein`s monster.

He got off massively lightly, but where is the evidence that it was reckless speed? The speed limit in itself tells us nothing. It doesn't tell us what would be a safe maximum speed.

He lost control and crashed and that, by my personal definition, is evidence he was driving too fast, but its not evidence that is accepted in court and you didn't say that anyway.
Anyone know why he lost control and crashed?

I know the road fairly well. Very narrow, almost single lane; lots of bumps and uneven surfaces; blind crests; 90 degree bends.

I think he lost control because he was doing 60mph on a road that it is not safe to do so.
How the judge could come to his conclusion baffles me.
Maybe he has never seen the road :evil:

greg66_tri_v2.0

daviesee wrote:

I know the road fairly well. Very narrow, almost single lane; lots of bumps and uneven surfaces; blind crests; 90 degree bends.

I think he lost control because he was doing 60mph on a road that it is not safe to do so.
How the judge could come to his conclusion baffles me.
Maybe he has never seen the road :evil:

That's interesting to hear. It puts into perspective the comment in the report that the driver was driving on the wrong side of the road. Also worth remembering that the accident was reported to have happened in the early hours of the morning, and (according to the driver, at least); the victim didn't have any lights on; and that the 60mph figure was taken from post-accident analysis that suggested the driver had been doing "up to" that speed. No one will likely ever know how fast the cyclist was travelling. Tyre marks and skid marks suggest, perhaps, that the driver saw the cyclist too late, braked and lost control in a slide. Whilst the driver may have been culpable, and driving at excess speed for the particular piece of road, for my part I can see the other side of the coin here.