Kill two cyclists but get away with community sentence

slowbike

VTech wrote:

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.

The inference from that meaning that if she'd worn a helmet she wouldn't have died - so the fact that she died is partly her own fault for not wearing adequate safety kit ....

But then why should a cyclist have to protect themselves against idiot drivers - I know we do, but why should we have to?

ooermissus

A similar case - with the lack of a seat belt a factor http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/ ... N-MITCHELL

nathancom

Slowbike wrote:

VTech wrote:

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.

The inference from that meaning that if she'd worn a helmet she wouldn't have died - so the fact that she died is partly her own fault for not wearing adequate safety kit ....

But then why should a cyclist have to protect themselves against idiot drivers - I know we do, but why should we have to?

Because roads are riskier places than most with vehicles travelling at 30mph+. Considering that roads were generally built for cars, cyclists need to accept this greater risk to some extent whilst campaigning for improved facilities (cycle lanes and cycle paths). It is still an incredibly safe form of transport.

zoltansocrates

on a positive note at least im safe on the road for the next 5 years

Davdandy

I would love to hit the driver myself in a case of momentary lapses in concentration.And the judge himself should serve a prison sentence.Both the judge and his drivers lawyers should be banged up alongside the driver.

Personally i call this murder,to happen once could be an accident,to happen twice is murder. :evil:

Lets face it,this country and its laws STINK.You can get away with murder,and its all thanks to the corrupt parasites that is the judicial system.Let them all rot in hell. :twisted:

unixnerd

Follow up from the poor woman's daughter calling for tougher sentences:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-e ... e-22410799

ooermissus

The husband seemingly had a slightly different take on it:

Prior to sentencing Mrs Fife's widower, John had said that jailing McCourt would be a waste of taxpayers money

I think it's interesting that the daughter places greater emphasis on the length of the ban, though, than the lack of a prison sentence. I think he also should have been told to pass a new test at the end of the five years. Maybe a good extension of the law would be for the judge to be able to order a certain number of hours of compulsory driver training before any new test could be taken.

MountainMonster

VTech wrote:

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.

He has now caused the death of 2 human beings, both being cyclists, and has done a short period of jail time with a short ban. He now has a 5 year ban and community service. That is only sending a message to dopey drivers that if "you do not pay attention, don't worry, even if someone dies you only have community service and a short ban".

This guy should be thrown in jail for many many many years, I can't believe his second conviction has lead to no jail time. It just goes to show how unjust and ineffective the UK's courts are. I would have taken that guys license off him permanently and given him a much larger chunk of community service, 300 hours for the death of someone for the second time is no penalty, especially as he will probably just hop on benefits and life the same life for 'free'.

seanoconn

The sheriff in the case said there were no aggravating factors such as drink and drugs. But under English law, aggravating factors include previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly offences that involve bad driving.

The more likely sentence from a 'judge' having taken into account the defendants previous record, would have been a custodial sentence and a life ban. And rightly so.

I don't know why cyclists don't wear helmets but they are not compulsory and therefore not relevant. Mrs Fyfe died because she was hit by a car driven by Gary McCourt, not because she wasn't wearing a helmet.

" A custodial sentence won't bring the victim back" is also irrelevant as no sentence can undo what has already been done.

VTech

@mountainmonster, im not sure whether you realised my view but im with you, im disgusted at the sentence and although I dont think he meant it, he obviously isnt too good at driving so he should of been banned for life.
Jail wasnt right unless it was proven he had intent.

I do think the law is stupid for not making cyclists wear a helmet, I do not want to link this death with my own thoughts but I do believe that you take serious risks if you dont wear a helmet and ive read on here from people involved in crashes and almost always they say they would probably have been killed if it were not for wearing a helmet so that speaks volumes.

slowbike

It's not compulsory to hold the handlebars but most of us do ....

Why should safety be legislated?

I rode to the pub and back the other evening - normal clothes on and no helmet. Quiet back roads in the country - no issue with cars and I didn't drink a lot... I didn't ride fast or push it in any way ....

I ride to work along a main road - a lot of cars, vans and lorries pass me and I'm often putting a fair bit of effort in - I wear cycle clothing and a helmet. The risk of accident is far higher.

Mikey23

I would assume that a judge in sentencing would be responding to evidence produced during the trial rather than making random statements based on his own personal prejudice. Otherwise I don't think he would remain a judge for very long. I would assume that evidence was produced that in this case, not wearing a helmet contributed to the ladies death. The media will of course make of that what they will as they usually do. It does seem likely that this case will be reviewed and quite rightly to...

Davdandy

What if a child was walking across the road and this imbecile ran her over but wasn't wearing a helmet,would it make one jot of difference.the child is still hurt if not killed by someone not looking ahead,which is paramount when driving.

This is not about helmets but about a nutter who cannot drive safely and the parasites that is called the justice system. :twisted:

VTech

Apparently he didnt run her over but clipped her back wheel as she was cycling. She fell and had injuries including head and died.
I believe he needs to lose his lisence for life as obviously he is careless by being too close to her in the first instance but I'm unaware of the laws regarding how much space a driver must give a cyclist so don't know wether other offences had taken place based on them laws ?

Davdandy

It doesn't matter how he hit her,clipping her wheel or otherwise,it is dangerous driving and one that resulted in death,and not for the first time.The man is a menace.

neeb

The most unbelievable aspect of this case for me is that after culpably killing two cyclists, he will still be allowed to drive again at some point in the future. This is just insane - why should it not be appropriate to automatically ban for life anyone who kills through irresponsible driving? Is the car really such a crutch in today's society that depriving someone of the right to drive, even when they have killed twice, is seen as deprivation of some fundamental right?

The punishment/sentencing issue is a distraction - you could argue for ages from different moral philosophical stances about how people who kill through irresponsibility (as opposed to intent) should be punished. The driving ban issue should be abundantly clear however - if you have killed or seriously injured someone as a result of irresponsible or reckless driving, you should simply not be allowed to drive again, period. I really can't understand why anyone would seriously try to argue against this and it's about time there was a focussed campaign to make it happen.

VTech

neeb wrote:

The most unbelievable aspect of this case for me is that after culpably killing two cyclists, he will still be allowed to drive again at some point in the future. This is just insane - why should it not be appropriate to automatically ban for life anyone who kills through irresponsible driving? Is the car really such a crutch in today's society that depriving someone of the right to drive, even when they have killed twice, is seen as deprivation of some fundamental right?

The punishment/sentencing issue is a distraction - you could argue for ages from different moral philosophical stances about how people who kill through irresponsibility (as opposed to intent) should be punished. The driving ban issue should be abundantly clear however - if you have killed or seriously injured someone as a result of irresponsible or reckless driving, you should simply not be allowed to drive again, period. I really can't understand why anyone would seriously try to argue against this and it's about time there was a focussed campaign to make it happen.

The problem is, what you have written is complete common sense but that is your flaw.
I agree 100% but when something like this happens people are in uproar and instead of campaigning for what you have written people instead campaign to lock him up and throw away the key. The problem is, he could not really have gone to jail unless intent or wrecklessness was involved which I think is not the case?
He was careless and so should as you say not be able to drive again. Tht is the right thing to do I believe.

seanoconn

VTech wrote:

neeb wrote:

The most unbelievable aspect of this case for me is that after culpably killing two cyclists, he will still be allowed to drive again at some point in the future. This is just insane - why should it not be appropriate to automatically ban for life anyone who kills through irresponsible driving? Is the car really such a crutch in today's society that depriving someone of the right to drive, even when they have killed twice, is seen as deprivation of some fundamental right?

The punishment/sentencing issue is a distraction - you could argue for ages from different moral philosophical stances about how people who kill through irresponsibility (as opposed to intent) should be punished. The driving ban issue should be abundantly clear however - if you have killed or seriously injured someone as a result of irresponsible or reckless driving, you should simply not be allowed to drive again, period. I really can't understand why anyone would seriously try to argue against this and it's about time there was a focussed campaign to make it happen.

The problem is, what you have written is complete common sense but that is your flaw.
I agree 100% but when something like this happens people are in uproar and instead of campaigning for what you have written people instead campaign to lock him up and throw away the key. The problem is, he could not really have gone to jail unless intent or wrecklessness was involved which I think is not the case?
He was careless and so should as you say not be able to drive again. Tht is the right thing to do I believe.

You can be jailed without intent. Specially with previous. Prison was the likely sentence and he was lucky to have a lenient judge/sheriff. Not a throw away the key job but a custodial sentence of some sort.

ooermissus

VTech wrote:

The problem is, he could not really have gone to jail unless intent or wrecklessness was involved

Of course, he could have been locked up - in England, the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving is 5 years imprisonment. It all depends on how careless the driving was, and on other aggravating/mitigating factors (such as having killed someone before). (And I think sentencing in Scotland is similar to England.)

Kerguelen

Apparently he didnt run her over but clipped her back wheel as she was cycling.

I fail to see the practical distinction there, VTech.

Can you explain how the two things are materially different, because as far as I can see they're not.

VTech wrote:

She fell and had injuries including head and died.

And there we are. She was killed.

VTech

I fear some of you are arguing because you like to argue with me but this is a serious issue and shouldn't be made less just because of a forum hatred.

Maybe my words were slightly wrong and I should have use the word, accident rather than wrecklessness. I'm sure you all understood my point.
I'm agreeing that the guy got away far too lightly but jail wasn't te right sentance was it !

ooermissus

Wrong, again, Vtech - the jury found that it wasn't accidental, which is why he was convicted of a criminal offense. And the idea that you're the only person compassionate enough to take this seriously is absurd.

Back to the topic. Here's what Audrey Fyfe's husband said on being told by the sheriff that his wife had made a significant contribution to her own death, despite no evidence being presented in court that a helmet would have saved her life:

I think it’s a shame that the victim is being blamed for the careless driving of someone else.

Like the driver, the sheriff had form. In 2011, he let a 90-year old keep her license after she drove straight into a cyclist who she had failed to see at a junction. The cyclist was badly injured (internal bleeding). The driver got a small fine and a few points on her license. I am sure that the fact that the latter - Lady Risk - was a former wife of the Governor of the Bank of Scotland had nothing to do with his leniency.

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/02/24/13908-2692/

VTech

ooermissus wrote:

Wrong, again, Vtech - the jury found that it wasn't accidental, which is why he was convicted of a criminal offense. And the idea that you're the only person compassionate enough to take this seriously is absurd.

Back to the topic. Here's what Audrey Fyfe's husband said on being told by the sheriff that his wife had made a significant contribution to her own death, despite no evidence being presented in court that a helmet would have saved her life:

I think it’s a shame that the victim is being blamed for the careless driving of someone else.

Like the driver, the sheriff had form. In 2011, he let a 90-year old keep her license after she drove straight into a cyclist who she had failed to see at a junction. The cyclist was badly injured (internal bleeding). The driver got a small fine and a few points on her license. I am sure that the fact that the latter - Lady Risk - was a former wife of the Governor of the Bank of Scotland had nothing to do with his leniency.

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/02/24/13908-2692/

In that case forgive my comments as try were based on the several threads and story I've read in it which I have related too in which it wasn't mentioned that he was actually charged or found guilty of wreckless driving.
Now that I k ow that is the case then of course, jail should have been the only course of action and although I do think she should of been wearing a helmet I don't think that changes the fact he was found guilty of wreckless driving and shouldn't have been referred too as a cause of death but from what I've read on that, he was summing up deliberations and answering claims based on cause if death ?

seanoconn

VTech wrote:

I fear some of you are arguing because you like to argue with me but this is a serious issue and shouldn't be made less just because of a forum hatred.

Maybe my words were slightly wrong and I should have use the word, accident rather than wrecklessness. I'm sure you all understood my point.
I'm agreeing that the guy got away far too lightly but jail wasn't te right sentance was it !

I'm guessing you probably won't like hearing this as it forms a basis of many of arguments ( mostly the losing ones ) but you're not hated. On the contrary, the members of the forum that read your posts regularly I suspect are quite fond of you and your special ways.

Sorry to disappoint but it's not VTech vs the forum. I agree or disagree because I believe someone to be right or wrong, no other reason.

When you behave in this manner and make statements which are blatantly wrong, it does sound like you're trolling to get a reaction to be honest.

Anyway, I know I'm wasting my breath The forum wouldn't be the same without you

VTech

I think in reality we both know some will say its raining if I say the sun is out !
I'm not bothered by it, I find it amusing in a way.
I speak from the heart, obviously no one is always right but I'm always true to myself and my thoughts and try to be compassionate. I feel it's a commodity often lacking these days.

I had originally based what I wrote on what was stated here and in the news article I read. I had no idea he was found guilty of wreckless driving so I based what I wrote on it being an accident were he clipped her rear wheel like was written in yahoo news.
Obviously now I know different I also feel differently.

ooermissus

VTech wrote:

In that case forgive my comments as try were based on the several threads and story I've read in it which I have related too in which it wasn't mentioned that he was actually charged or found guilty of wreckless driving.
Now that I k ow that is the case then of course, jail should have been the only course of action

I think I understand the source of your confusion. The charge was careless driving - the sheriff said it was the lesser end of carelessness (the 'momentary lapse' that you're probably referring to), not the more serious end (almost bad enough to justify a charge of dangerous driving). The previous offense increases the seriousness, however - and would, as others have pointed out, probably have justified a prison sentence under English sentencing guidelines. Scotland doesn't publish its own guidelines though, but the sentences seem to be similar.

Careless driving = falls below the standards you'd expect from a competent driver. Dangerous driving = clearly falls far below these standards. Reckless driving is an offense in America.

OTRveloClub

I guess whether or not he should have gone to prison all depends on the circumstances.

Accidents do happen and they are not always because people weren't taking due care and attention but because driving is inherently dangerous. If we all drove at 10mph then the risks would be diminished. But we don't drive that slowly and usually drive at 30mph in town and well over that in other places. So this driver may just be unlucky, people who cause accidents usually don't plan to cause accidents that's why they are called accidents.
Anyway this driver is either very unlucky or a bad driver. Firstly he should be punished for his actions by the courts to make justice done then surely the courts should see to it that he never causes an accident like this again.

He should have been banned for life no matter what the circumstances if you use my analogy and say that this driver was unlucky. Society doesn't need this sort of unlucky driver roaming around on the open highway in a motor vehicle ever again. He should be reduced to having to use public transport or even a bicycle to get around for the rest of his life.

300 hours community, what does that equal 8 weeks or 2 months of painting railing or picking up litter?
I feel that 2000 hours would have been more suitable.

As for the helmet thing, I wear a helmet but not for every journey on a bike, when I am out training then the helmet goes on just in case my own stupid actions or should I say lack of luck means I end up coming off. When I cycle down town on my town bike the helmet stays off as I don't go fast around town. Of course I am completely wrong to do this because if i think my helmet might offer some help with impact on the ground when I fall then I should wear my helmet all the time. Then of course if I care about my safety I should consider the fact that when walking I could slip and fall and bang my head so maybe I should wear a helmet as a pedestrian. Of course when I drive I wear a seat belt because driving is dangerous this is an area where I should also wear a helmet as driving in cars a lot of people die of head injuries if they crash. That said I guess me not wearing a helmet when I cycle in town is like bus passengers not having seat belts sitting on seats with seats in front that have metal backs ideal for killing you if there is a sudden stop. OH MY GOD this is a fact people should be wearing helmets when they travel on buses as well.

Generally driving in the UK is getting worse it seems, and this is more down to politeness or lack of it. For example Years ago if a driver saw a horse rider they would stop maybe even turn their engine off and wait for the horse rider to pass by. These days many drivers hardly slow down. As for cyclist years ago people would wait for the right time to over take and when they did they would move over to the other side of the road giving good distance between them and the cyclist. These days the likely hood of being clipped by a wing mirror is extremely high.

SORRY FOR THE DIATRIBE and very sorry to hear about this incident for all parties but really annoyed by the outcome whether this driver deserved prison is one thing but not to ban him for life is irresponsible.

OTRveloClub

VTech wrote:

@mountainmonster, im not sure whether you realised my view but im with you, im disgusted at the sentence and although I dont think he meant it, he obviously isnt too good at driving so he should have been banned for life.
Jail wasnt right unless it was proven he had intent.

I do think the law is stupid for not making cyclists wear a helmet, I do not want to link this death with my own thoughts but I do believe that you take serious risks if you dont wear a helmet and ive read on here from people involved in crashes and almost always they say they would probably have been killed if it were not for wearing a helmet so that speaks volumes.

Should people wear helmets where there is a risk of head injury in all circumstances ? Surely you should wear a helmet when driving a car at 60+ mph, people should wear helmets in many other circumstances ?

ooermissus

Do we really have to turn this thread about the death of a smiley old lady into a fruitless argument about helmets?

ademort

I agree with much of the above. I live in the Netherlands and have learnt over the years that as a cyclist i,m worth almost nothing when some idiot kills me out on the road. I feel as a human being , Father of two children that i,m worth something, however the courts see it differently. Here for a hit and run leave somebody dead or dying on the road and if you are caught don,t expect to get more than a suspended sentence at most or 100 hours community service. If you are lucky you will keep your driving license and carry on with your life. This is supposed to be a land where cyclists are well looked after with some of the best cycling lanes anywhere, but just wait till you have an accident and you will see what you are worth as far as the law is concerned. Just recently here, there have been three hit and runs. The first two were a car and one cyclist . The last was a car and four cyclists. You would not believe the response from people after reading the article online. 95% of the readers hated cyclists and presumed that the cyclists were guilty of riding in the middle of the road yet the reports never even mentioned who was to blame as the accidents were still being investigated at the time.One idiot even said that cyclists should have insurance and pay road tax. What the Fuk has that got to do with a hit and run
Ademort