Kill two cyclists but get away with community sentence

IanLD

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-e ... e-22397918

Second time he's killed a cyclist and he only gets 300 hours. Surely this should be a trigger case that gets taken up by CTC, British Cycling etc to get changes made. As has been said in other posts, if it was a cop, then the book gets thrown at them, but the rest of us are totally dispensable and worthless hinderances to motorists.

Unbelievable...

Must surely add more weight to the arguement to introduce strict liability and not just in Scotland.

mbthegreat

What a joke. Only a five year driving ban as well, take away his licence for life. This isn't even your classic error of judgement sort of thing as I understand it (like pulling out on someone or dooring), this is him hitting her from behind no?

Also the whole "She wasn't wearing a helmet so it's not his fault" thing is a load of bullshit.

IanLD

The wasn't wearing a helmet line wasn't there when I first posted the link. BBC have added to the story.

I'm ranting away in the office - quite a few cycling commuters in here and one other ex-roadie. Even the non-cyclists are pretty shocked at this.

sunburntknees

Totally disgusting.

sunburntknees

Are there any legal eagles out there who can explain why the driver was not charged with a more serious offence, manslaughter perhaps? It seems to me that the road has its own set of offences which are viewed far less leniently than they would be in any other sphere.

With regard to the Sheriff's comment about the cyclist not wearing a helmet, no doubt if this was a rape case and he had said the victim was 'asking for it' by wearing a short skirt (for example), then he would be invited tender his resignation quick smart.

cheaterkiller

IanLD wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918

Second time he's killed a cyclist and he only gets 300 hours. Surely this should be a trigger case that gets taken up by CTC, British Cycling etc to get changes made. As has been said in other posts, if it was a cop, then the book gets thrown at them, but the rest of us are totally dispensable and worthless hinderances to motorists.

Unbelievable...

Must surely add more weight to the arguement to introduce strict liability and not just in Scotland.

Thats a disgusting absence of justice. You would think after the first person he killed, he would recieve appropriate punishment. The case should be reviewed as this is clearly a breach of the decease d's human rights aswell well as that of friends and relatives.

Guanajuato

So, not wearing a helmet makes it OK for a pillock to murder you? Remorse my arse.
Some motorists seem to think its some kind of funny game to overtake giving as little space as possible. This sentence sends the message that its fine to do that.
Judge obviously absolutely clueless. No evidence that wearing a helmet prevents injuries - in fact there's plenty of evidence that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to have an accident, and be given less space by dickheads in metal boxes. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1230.html

Guanajuato

cheaterkiller wrote:

Worth killing a judge for.

Well, if he's not wearing a helmet, he's asking for it isn't he. :evil:

Guanajuato

sunburntknees wrote:

With regard to the Sheriff's comment about the cyclist not wearing a helmet, no doubt if this was a rape case and he had said the victim was 'asking for it' by wearing a short skirt (for example), then he would be invited tender his resignation quick smart.

Maybe its worth a few emails to edinburgh@scotcourts.gov.uk asking if Sheriff James Scott is could explain his assertion that not wearing a helmet makes the cyclist culpable for their own murder at the hands of an idiot. Maybe relating to the 'wearing short skirts is asking for rape' argument.

Mikey23

Strangely, I don't yet share in the sense of moral outrage. Does any one have the full judges summing up and the reasoning for his decision?

danlikesbikes

Mikey23 wrote:

Strangely, I don't yet share in the sense of moral outrage. Does any one have the full judges summing up and the reasoning for his decision?

As we speak are only newspaper summaries of what the judges comments were 'no aggravating factors, has shown remorse, cyclist not wearing a helmet, a momentary lose of concentration'

IanLD

http://road.cc/content/news/82424-commu ... t-25-years

Have to hope that procurator fiscal does decide to appeal the sheriff's sentencing and senseless comments.

slowbike

Mikey23 wrote:

Strangely, I don't yet share in the sense of moral outrage. Does any one have the full judges summing up and the reasoning for his decision?

300 hours community service and 5 years driving ban .. moral outrage - like you - no ...

I'm cross about the implication that a cyclist who dies as a result of a collision due to no fault of their own some how contributes to their death by not wearing a helmet - they shouldn't have to wear a helmet in the first place - and what's next? Body Armour?

Anyway - back to the sentence - what is a prison sentence going to achieve? Will he contribute more to society with 300 hours community service (about 8-9 weeks full time work) or in prison?

cheaterkiller

Guanajuato wrote:

cheaterkiller wrote:

Worth killing a judge for.

Well, if he's not wearing a helmet, he's asking for it isn't he. :evil:

But he wears a wig tho, and police wear hats so they're ok too.

*Had a request to modify my original comment as this site doesnt advocate murder. Fair enough because I share a similar view, hence the reason I think the justice system needs an overhaul.

Bobbinogs

I would like to say that this judgement was unbelievable...but I am not in any way surprised. Some of the judges out there need to stop identifying the criminal as another victim, and the comments about the poor lady not wearing a helmet is just blinking outrageous and yet another red herring.

VTech

It was never going to be murder unless he went out to purposefully kill someone so he was never going to get a sentence that tired the outcome of what happened.
As he successfully argued that he clipped the rear wheel of her bike at worst it was careless driving so again, the sentence could never be anything more than a slap on the wrist.

I think it's outrageous that after a second incident that the ban is so small. I also think there should be a change of law that relates to the outcome of incidents but if thy were to happen there would be people arguing over sentences of people they claim simply had accidents and didnt deserve a harsh sentence.

I can't imagine how the family feel, if it were me I wouldn't feel justice had been done.
Have the family made a statement ?

nathancom

The prior case was in 1986 though, so nearly 30 years ago. This is not a sign of an emerging pattern. As already noted, what social benefit would a custodial sentence confer? No doubt the family are upset and understandably but this was by all accounts an accident. It is not reasonable to load heavy sentences on individuals in order to appear to be taking action on road safety, when the solutions no doubt lie outside the courtroom.

Mikey23

I wasn't condemning or condoning, simply pointing that none of the posters presumably were there at the incident or the subsequent trial and sentencing therefore are not in possession of the facts other than the usual knee jerk reaction type reporting of these incidents. They have picked out the stereotype phrases that the public like to hear such as not wearing a helmet blah blah blah. I would imagine that the decision made by the judge was deeply thought out and justified and appropriate in the circumstances and is of course appealable. But of course if you guys want to form a lynch mob for the judge or blame thatcher them be my guest. A very sad case and a needless life lost...

VTech

Mikey23 wrote:

I wasn't condemning or condoning, simply pointing that none of the posters presumably were there at the incident or the subsequent trial and sentencing therefore are not in possession of the facts other than the usual knee jerk reaction type reporting of these incidents. They have picked out the stereotype phrases that the public like to hear such as not wearing a helmet blah blah blah. I would imagine that the decision made by the judge was deeply thought out and justified and appropriate in the circumstances and is of course appealable. But of course if you guys want to form a lynch mob for the judge or blame thatcher them be my guest. A very sad case and a needless life lost...

I'm not sure if its this or all forums but lynch mob mentality is rife here.
As you suggest, he isn't a murderer, maybe needs to stop driving ???

ooermissus

Not sure how things differ in Scotland, but the judge stuck closely to the sentencing guidelines for England. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... e_driving/

And a lot of what the judge is reported to have said reflects these guidelines too. Bemused why he thought the helmet was relevant though. A tougher sentence would probably have been struck down on appeal. Also the family didn't want a prison sentence.

I reacted very angrily to this too but now I am not so sure.

giant_man

Mikey23 wrote:

I wasn't condemning or condoning, simply pointing that none of the posters presumably were there at the incident or the subsequent trial and sentencing therefore are not in possession of the facts other than the usual knee jerk reaction type reporting of these incidents. They have picked out the stereotype phrases that the public like to hear such as not wearing a helmet blah blah blah. I would imagine that the decision made by the judge was deeply thought out and justified and appropriate in the circumstances and is of course appealable. But of course if you guys want to form a lynch mob for the judge or blame thatcher them be my guest. A very sad case and a needless life lost...

how much more fu**ing proof do you want, pal? Idiot talk.

VTech

giant man wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

I wasn't condemning or condoning, simply pointing that none of the posters presumably were there at the incident or the subsequent trial and sentencing therefore are not in possession of the facts other than the usual knee jerk reaction type reporting of these incidents. They have picked out the stereotype phrases that the public like to hear such as not wearing a helmet blah blah blah. I would imagine that the decision made by the judge was deeply thought out and justified and appropriate in the circumstances and is of course appealable. But of course if you guys want to form a lynch mob for the judge or blame thatcher them be my guest. A very sad case and a needless life lost...

how much more fu**ing proof do you want, pal? Idiot talk.

He didnt ask for any ?
He was trying to calm the waters when people would initially jump in and try and execute the man without realising what really happened.
The driver really needs to stop driving, he obviously has trouble concentrating but he didnt try to kill anyone, he was careless and as a result someone died.

AchillesLeftKnee

Mikey23 wrote:

Strangely, I don't yet share in the sense of moral outrage.

Likewise, because as a human being who uses the roads, I am fully aware that despite my best efforts to use the roads in a safe manner, I am not immune to making a mess of it, and the results of that mess may well be horrific out of all proportion to the mistake itself.

For the sake of a momentary distraction, being a second late checking a mirror, or something equally trivial, there but for the grace of [insert deity of choice] go all of us, both as driver and cyclist.

(Edited... profanity filter rendering post daft)

unixnerd

Only a five year driving ban as well, take away his licence for life.

+1. Sending him to jail won't do any good, won't bring back his victims. But he shouldn't be allowed to drive again.

mike6

Two things.

Firstly its not compulsory to wear a helmet, so that argument is a red herring. Having said that, why was the judge making excuses for the driver?

Secondly, If the myopic driver had hit and killed a woman pushing her baby in a pram would the judge have been so forgiving and lenient? I doubt it. lets face it, the inference being "Its only a cyclist".

VTech

mike6 wrote:

Two things.

Firstly its not compulsory to wear a helmet, so that argument is a red herring. Having said that, why was the judge making excuses for the driver?

Secondly, If the myopic driver had hit and killed a woman pushing her baby in a pram would the judge have been so forgiving and lenient? I doubt it. lets face it, the inference being "Its only a cyclist".

If he had killed a mom and kid your right, he sentence would have been harsh.
I've not read the deps but did he refer to the helmet in reference to it being partly her fault or to warn people of the dangers ?

IanLD

Scots law here and it is a sheriff, not a judge.

Doesn't mean that he can't make some inane comments and totally ignore the pleas from the victims families.

Glad to see the CTC are making a big fuss about this case. I would hope that the procurator fiscal does appeal against too lenient a sentence and also that he gets a lifetime ban. Should have been given one first time round.

Sheriff Scott seems to be deluded in his assessment of what a helmet can do. Perhaps he would like to try one against a car and see how he finds it.

Appalling sentence and incompetent application of liability. Wonder if there is more on this sheriff?

unixnerd

Glad to see the CTC are making a big fuss about this case

Agreed. The woman is or was a CTC member which will motivate them even more. It also suggests she was a competent cyclist, her relatives must be furious.

xtc_special

Like some have said, this guy should not be driving period!
You would think that after being jailed for killing a cyclist years before that he would be giving cyclists a wide berth and be even more vigilant for any bikes on the road.

So how many more cyclists will he have to kill before some one takes this seriously! :?:

VTech

I've read in another thread that he only refered to the helmet as it being a factor in the death and not in reference to it being her fault.
Others have also said that even if it were a tougher sentence he would then appeal and win.
I think the best sentence would have been a life ban.

Mikey23

@oorerrmissus... Thanks for that. It seems that the judge was within his permitted range of sentencing.
@giantman... Your literate contribution to this debate is greatly appreciated