[Closed] Is this really a reasonable sentence given the gravity of the issue?

I'd say no, it's not, but the courts/legal system/society don't give a f*ck if you're killed on a bike.

Seems like 'perfect' way to get away with murder/manslaughter.

No. The question though should be whether it's a surprising sentence. To which the answer is also no.

Doesn't even sound like he's been banned from driving, despite his poor driving being responsible for 2 deaths now (even if accidental as he claims). WTF? Surely he can't be allowed behind the wheel again?

that is a disgrace but not at all surprisingly, which is extremely depressing 🙁

Such a depressingly familiar thread and story. How often do we see this now?

Has that sentence done anything to make anybody safer?

Just indicative of the skewed prorities we have in this country, spend millions putting in paths, steps and fencing so those accessing the control boxes on the motorway embankments to reduce the relatively low risk of a minor accident whilst completely failing to tackle the main cause behind thousands of deaths each year. Ironically the steps are often not that safe afer they fail to cut the grass / don't repair them when a car goes through the railings like one on the M66.
[img] [/img]

Doesn't even sound like he's been banned from driving

Last line of the article: "McCourt was also banned from driving for five years"

It's this part that really annoys me:

"However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."

When did you last see in an article about someone being stabbed to death that they were at least partially responsible, as they weren't wearing a stab vest!?

Sheriff Scott said: "I take into account that the accused has repeatedly expressed genuine remorse for causing the death of Mrs Fyfe.

"I take into account that the accused has been ill and has suffered from depression and that he displays signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.

"Mrs Fyffe wasn't to blame in any way for the accident.

"However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."

Sheriff Scott needs hauling over the coals for that load of ill-informed shite

I am confused. According to the BBC article:
[i]Gary McCourt, 49, from Edinburgh, was found guilty last month of killing Audrey Fyfe, 75, in August 2011[/i]
[i]McCourt had previously been found guilty in 1986 of causing another cyclist's death by reckless driving[/i]
[i]He was jailed for two years after cyclist George Dalgity, 22, a student from Edinburgh, was killed while he cycled along the city's Regent Road on 18 October 1995[/i]
It's possible that my maths is worse than I thought, but I make that three...

"However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."

Sheriff Scott needs hauling over the coals for that load of ill-informed shite

I bet TJ's on the way round already. 🙂

Yeah I saw that, seemed like a slap on the wrist and a "woopsy you've done it again haven't you, you naughty so and so" attitude.

There was an arrest wrt that other cyclist killed in Edinburgh last year fairly recently too, seemed a long time after the event. Not sure when that will go to trial.

that junction scares me every time I cycle past it. I remember seeing the sign up after she was killed. Moral: it's ok to hit cyclists if they aren't wearing helmets.

Doesn't even sound like he's been banned from driving, despite his poor driving being responsible for 2 deaths now (even if accidental as he claims).

a 5 yr ban actually

franksinatra -

Has that sentence done anything to make anybody safer?

well that is presumably the intent of the 5yr ban.

It's possible that my maths is worse than I thought, but I make that three...

or like the rest of the dodgy journalism it was a typo and should have been 1985.

"Mrs Fyffe wasn't to blame in any way for the accident.

"However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."

ALL

MY

RAGE.

Last line of the article: "McCourt was also banned from driving for five years"

That wasn't there when first linked and commented on (it appears to have been a work in progress). Nor was the bit about the helmet, hence why early commenters weren't raging about that.

He was previously found guilty in 1986 of killing a cyclist in 1985 (you don't really expect a conviction to happen in less than 6 weeks from the incident).

You know what actually really boils my piss though:
"Sheriff James Scott said he felt able to spare McCourt prison because there were no aggravating factors, such as drink or drug abuse."

Supposedly being in a collision with a vulnerable road user should be an aggravating factor, one which is routinely ignored.

LOUD NOISES! I can't even think of a coherent thing to say other than ****S! the lot of em, it is quite clear the judiciary in this country couldn't give two turds about cyclists on the roads. They are somewhat hampered by the pathetic laws and the fact that if you are in a car you must be in the right unless proven otherwise. I'll say it again, ****S!

Utterly ridiculous.

This guy is responsible for the deaths of two people and he gets community service?

The bit about the helmet is equally frustrating / moronic / ridiculous.

this just sickens me.

I remember seeing the sign up after she was killed.

did the sign say "if you're not on drugs and there's a cyclist in the way who's not wearing a helmet, plough on through"

The bit about the helmet is equally frustrating / moronic / ridiculous.

Its irrelevent, she may, or may not have been wearing knickers. Doesn't change the fact she was run down and killed. Oh I'm all cross again now, I'd calmed down.

Sheriff James Scott from 2010
[url= http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/02/24/13908-2692/ ]Sheriff says 90 year-old Lady Risk is no risk to drivers[/url]

What are the odds of killing 2 cyclists by accident in seperate incidents?

I'm rubbish at maths and my stats are ball park but here goes.

Well 122 died in 2012
There are around 50million drivers.
So if you drove for 60 years there could be 7,320 deaths
So I reckon your chances of causing one death is 0.00014640

Two, I calculate at 2.143296e-8

Mathematicians, I think I need help. Is that right?

Its irrelevent, she may, or may not have been wearing knickers. Doesn't change the fact she was run down and killed.

+1

The Sheriff needs taking outside and being shot.

Given the low odds of killing even one cyclist by driving, the odds on killing two must be tiny. Presumably the Sheriff took the infinitesimally small odds of causing a third into consideration during his sentencing 🙄

There are around 5million drivers.

I don't believe it's anywhere near that low.

aracer - typo edited to 50 now

RAC say [url= http://www.rac.co.uk/advice/reports-on-motoring/ ]30 Million[/url] so if anyone wants to improve my rubbish maths

Closing duplicated thread over here: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/kill-2-cyclists-300-hrs-community-service

give it a few more years and there'll be a bounty on each cyclist killed to collect.

Given the low odds of killing even one cyclist by driving, the odds on killing two must be tiny

The Roy Meadow's statistical defence 🙁

To be honest 300 hours community service for careless (not dangerous or reckless) driving is pretty severe, and just stops short of a custodial sentence. I can well believe that having served a sentence for one death, he'd be remorseful. But sometimes people can be unlucky.

See how long Nicky Lovell gets sentenced for killing two in Bristol whilst disqualified.

Oh and the judges comments about not wearing a helmet made me more upset than the sentence.

Unbelievable. The sentence needs to be appealed and the judge needs to be struck off.

Are the groups which are supposed to represent cyclists actually doing anything about this?
Cyclists have no collective voice other than BC etc. Until someone kicks off, nothing will change. Internet incredulity just won't cut it, however well meaning.

But sometimes people can be unlucky.

Yes, the cyclists.

[quote=wrecker ]Are the groups which are supposed to represent cyclists actually doing anything about this?
Cyclists have no collective voice other than BC etc. Until someone kicks off, nothing will change. Internet incredulity just won't cut it, however well meaning.
That's always been the issue. There's always thr Pedal on Parliament. At least it attempts to show the strength of feeling/numbers involved.
http://pedalonparliament.org/

Unbelievable comments by the judge. If the guy had killed another driver who wasn't wearing a crash helmet whilst driving then would he have made a similar comment?

What we want
1.Proper funding for cycling.
2.Design cycling into Scotland’s roads.
3.Slower speeds where people live, work and play
4.Integrate cycling into local transport strategies
5.Improved road traffic law and enforcement
6.Reduce the risk of HGVs to cyclists and pedestrians
7.A strategic and joined-up programme of road user training
8.Improved statistics supporting decision-making and policy

I think they need to add to that "Sentences for drivers that actually reflect the seriousness of what has happened, ie a death should be treated as manslaughter (at the least) and the sentence handed out should bear relevance to that fact."

Drivers literally getting away with murder.

Edit- I am a driver, I drive for work, but the driving population need to realise they aren't the only ones on the road.

That wasn't there when first linked and commented on (it appears to have been a work in progress).

no but it was easy to find in google - so before people get irate at one news article perhaps they need to do their research. At least then they could be annoyed for good reason!

300 hours community service can, I believe, only be used as an alternative to prison. i.e. the Sheriff considered prison, asked for the required reports and decided that there was an alternative. He does outline his reasons for this. Is sentencing someone suffering from PTSD and depression to prison a particularly smart move?

There are no sentencing guidelines in Scotland, but as TiRed points out Careless driving is at the bottom end of the scale. Without having heard all the evidence and seen all the reports etc its impossible to say if it falls within the English sentencing guidance, but Community Orders are possible outcomes of Death by Careless Driving cases in England. Failing to take account of vulnerable road users is a factor in assessing the seriousness of the offence rather than explicitly an aggravating factor - so to the lay reader that may seem odd, but the distinction seems valid.

 

"Sentences for drivers that actually reflect the seriousness of what has happened, ie a death should be treated as manslaughter (at the least) and the sentence handed out should bear relevance to that fact."

But death by dangerous / careless driving was invented because manslaughter was too hard to prove in most cases.

Drivers literally getting away with murder.

suggest you go and look up the definition of murder.

[quote=noid ]
> Drivers literally getting away with murder.
suggest you go and look up the definition of literally.
FTFY 🙂

Everyone's saying that the sentence is terrible, but may I ask what he should have had?
Life ban from driving?
Life in prison?
Death sentence?

It seems to me that this person unfortunately had a collision with a cyclist nearly 30 years ago and went to prison for 2 years for it, as it was deemed by the courts to be reckless driving.

30 years later, unfortunately again, he has another collision. All it says in that article is that he clipped her wheel. We can't see exactly what happened, and the courts have only deemed it careless driving, and have given the punishment that they see fit.

Everyone here seems to be talking as though this guy is careering round the streets, knocking down cyclists left right and centre! I don't see any sign that he was intending to cause any accidents, and guess what, accidents happen. Referring to this as "murder" seems a bit strong.

I'm not in favour of light sentences if the driver has been genuinely reckless, and maybe in both of these cases they could have been stronger, but I don't see that people should be locked up and the key thrown away just because of an accident.

Cycling is a dangerous activity, especially in a city. There are accidents on the roads everyday, and not always because someone was being reckless. We don't know anything about what the cyclists where doing at the time. I'm not blaming the cyclist in any way, just saying we don't have the information.

And everyone's getting upset about the helmet comment. If you choose to ride your bike with cars you're taking a risk. They're much bigger than you, and if you hit one/one hits you, you're going to lose. If you choose to ride your bike with cars and not wear a helmet (it's your choice), you just increase your risk.

Hyperthetical question:
If a driver had two collisions with cyclists over his lifetime and they both got up and road away because they were wearing helmets, or they both died because they weren't and suffered serious head injuries, should the driver receive the same or different punishments?

Its all been said however not only where cyclists are concerned but across the board the Judicial system in this country is an absolute joke. Truly pathetic where you have people passing judgement who are so out of touch with reality that things like this happen on an almost daily basis.

The only winners are criminal solicitors, barristers and judges sitting in their old boys club.

Judges [i]allegedly [/i]get training on probability, cause and effect. Fact is cars and bikes sharing the same road is going to mean accidents, it's a statistical certainty. More bikes and more cars is more accidents. And the severity of any sentences is just not going to change it. They know this and see most drivers, and cyclists involved, as just unlucky.

The real way way to tackle the problem is proper cycle lanes, not imaginary painted ones, proper lanes with a physical barrier. Like they've had across most of Europe for years...

Proper lanes with a physical barrier like in the centre of Amsterdam?

Safe Cycling - The case for segregated cycle lanes in the UK

Apparently the UK has the fifth worst record in the EU for actively reducing cycling fatalities. We also have a disgraceful cycle rate when looking at the number of kilometres cycled per inhabitant per day when compared to countries like Holland, Denmark and Germany. For more information see an excellent study entitled “Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany” published by Rutgers in July 2008, which found that[b] evidence from countries with high cycling levels suggests that the key is the provision of separate cycling facilities[/b] along heavily travelled roads and at intersections, combined with residential street traffic calming.

A study by US researchers examined factors which contribute to major differences in cycling levels between the US, UK, and Holland, Denmark and Germany. This included a review of trends in cycling safety. Averaged over the years 2002 to 2005, the number of cyclist fatalities per 100 million km cycled was [b]5.8 in the USA and 3.6 in the UK, compared to 1.7 in Germany, 1.5 in Denmark, and 1.1 in Holland. [/b]Cycling levels have increased in Germany, Denmark and Holland over the past 35 years, whilst the total number of cycling fatalities has declined by over 70%. Fatalities fell by 60% in the UK over the same period, but cycling also decreased.

Bare minimum should be that that guy never gets behind a wheel again...ever. Although IMO if you kill someone through dangerous driving (as he did first time round) he should have been banned for life then. No ifs, no buts. If this was the automatic punishment then at least one person would be alive today.

As for the helmet comment, it sounds like it wasn't a massive impact, so (without seeing any medical reports) its possible that maybe not wearing a helmet was a contributing factor. That however shouldn't have any bearing on the sentence handed out to the driver.

The helmet issue is a nonsense. Is there any evidence that wearing a helmet would have saved the poor woman's life?
This guy has now 'killed' two cyclists. How can 300 hours be appropriate?
When you are driving any kind of motor vehicle we should all be aware that we are driving a potentially lethal weapon. We have a duty to not have 'momentary lapses of concentration'. I think this case is a tragedy but also an absolute scandal.

The helmet statement should never have been made, the courts should examine the facts from a purely legal standpoint.

Was an offence committed, was the cyclist in anyway negligent and contributed to their own accident. Riding without lights at night would be negligent.

Although I advocate wearing helmets there is no legal requirement. Wearing or not wearing a helmet is completely irrelevant as they may or may not reduce the chance of head injury as it depends how you fall etc. If wearing helmets was a legal requirement then not wearing one could be brought into the equation, as it isn't its irrelevant.

ARRRRGGGGHHH JUSTICE MY ARSE

I think if I ever find myself with a claim for whiplash against me I'm going to suggest the claimant should have their settlement reduced for contributory negligence if they're not wearing a neck brace.

@robinbetts,

a couple of questions.

did a cyclist die, yes/no
did the car have a malfunction, yes/no

on the basis that both answers are no,

a further question.

the incident is the result of driver error. yes/no

now we get to the crux

Did the driver follow the below guideline, yes/no

[img] [/img]

There are very few unavoidable accidents, most result from a driver doing something stupid.

A driver that has proven they are stupid has no place behind the wheel of a ton of steel capable of 100+ mph, and that is no place ever again.

No one has the right to drive, it is a priviledge granted to those who show a degree of competence, if through your actions you do not meet that level, then sorry you have no place on the road.

Would anyone care to speculate as to what the sentence would have been if he had knocked Lady Risk off a bike and she had died ?

This is an absolute ****ing joke. How can he get away with such a leniant sentence after killing a cyclist through a momentary loss of concerntration for a SECOND ****ING TIME! If I had accidentally killed a cyclist because my mind drifted away from the very important task of not hitting someone with my two tonne metal box, you can be assured I would never, ever 'momentarily lose my concerntration' whilst driving EVER AGAIN.

I note that the Beeb have changed the title of the story online to the CTC statement 'Cyclist killer Gary McCourt sentence 'scandalous'.

See where that takes it.

Stucol

Lady Risk ,I know :roll:, but to be fair she sprinted down to get a checkup from the Advanced drivers institute ,and was almost offered a job.

I would say no............but as they say life is cheap, if it was a member of my family it would be an eye for an eye,call me old skool if you want, but it would get sorted, I don't trust the law or the courts.

He'll be out painting fences.

Keyboard vigilantes, attack!

All it says in that article is that he clipped her wheel. We can't see exactly what happened, and the courts have only deemed it careless driving, and have given the punishment that they see fit.

Everyone here seems to be talking as though this guy is careering round the streets, knocking down cyclists left right and centre! I don't see any sign that he was intending to cause any accidents, and guess what, accidents happen

The fallacy is that what he did only involved a momentary lapse of concentration. The thing is, if he'd been driving correctly otherwise, a momentary lapse of concentration wouldn't have resulted in him clipping the back wheel of a cyclist and killing her. Accidents only happen because people don't follow the rules correctly - generally they give cyclists far too little room, pass too close, don't give them enough consideration. Most of the time they get away with it - occasionally a "momentary lapse of concentration" means that instead of just passing too close they hit the cyclist. He might not be careering round the streets, but if a "momentary lapse of concentration" is enough for him to clip a cyclist, then his normal standard of driving is simply not good enough.

The thing is, the very act of hitting a cyclist ought to be evidence enough in itself of reckless driving (or whatever the next step up is from careless - can't be bothered to search right now). It should be such a long way below the standard of driving of somebody driving properly that it's not possible for it to just be careless. It's only drivers who routinely pass to close and otherwise don't pay enough consideration to cyclists for whom it's such a small step - the issue being that so many people drive like that it is seen as the normal standard of driving. This is the attitude which needs to change.

robinbetts - I supposed you'd buy him a new car, tell him it's not his fault and ask him to be a nice chap and not to do it again.

He [b]SHOULD[/b] receive a lifetime ban, it's only by making examples out of these pricks that the wider population will take notice.

Cycling is a dangerous activity, especially in a city. There are accidents on the roads everyday, and not always because someone was being reckless. We don't know anything about what the cyclists where doing at the time. I'm not blaming the cyclist in any way, just saying we don't have the information.

Granted it is dangerous, but without stronger laws and negligent road users being held to account it will never stop happening. The basic fact is that he's killed 2 people in 30 years, 2 living breathing Human beings, he's not knocked over a dustbin. We don't 'know' the circumstances but he's taken 2 lives, because he wasn't paying attention.

The following comment can be attributed to a Crown Office spokesperson:

"Crown Counsel will give careful consideration as to whether the sentence was unduly lenient."

Background
In cases of a serious nature such as this, Crown Counsel will often consider whether the sentence imposed is within the range available to the sheriff in the exercise of his or her discretion. The fact that this is done should not, in advance of any decision on the matter by Crown Counsel, be taken as indicating a view that the sentence is unduly lenient. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.

"Crown Counsel will give careful consideration as to whether the sentence was unduly lenient."

Indeed and the Crown Office will have the advantage of having "all" the facts of the case in front of them rather than just the bits reported in the press or even the bits you want to hear.

He'll be out painting fences.

Yes, or repairing / building cycle paths, or doing other stuff that might actually benefit society. Whilst the punishment part of the sentence might seem low, especially for a second offence, I wonder (as presumably the Sheriff did) what benefit there would be from sending another person with mental health issues to our prisons. Judges (including Sheriffs) are actually pretty good at listening to ALL the information, and reading the reports from Social Work etc and coming to reasoned and balanced decisions rather than getting emotional about the particular type of case or pet issue. They may also become a bit hardened to the realities of the shit end of society though - so there is perhaps some leniency towards those who didn't set out with intent because every day they see idiots who stab, punch, attack, steal, rape, etc with clear intent and obvious consequences.

He SHOULD receive a lifetime ban, it's only by making examples out of these pricks that the wider population will take notice.

I'm not convinced that is true. Nobody* sets out in the morning believing their driving is likely to cause an accident, and certainly not to kill someone. There is however vast amounts of inconsiderate or careless driving that could cause an accident were it not for a degree of luck (or skill from other road users). If you want to make the roads safer via the courts, I don't think the answer is to worry about draconian sentences for the tiny proportion of bad driving which results in death - the answer is to have far higher detection and conviction for the minor matters every day. If I** believe I am likely to get caught and prosecuted for the minor stuff then I'm less likely to take chances. If less people take chances, less will go wrong and fewer people will get hurt/killed. Can anyone here say they have changed their behaviour for either of the following reasons:

(1) Their Sat Nav, local knowledge or a road sign warned of an upcoming (mobile) speed camera and the fear of 3pts and £60 fine.
(2) They thought if I crash and kill someone then a prison sentence is likely.

The empirical evidence from my experience on the roads is that I am much more likely to get a fine for overstaying in a safe parking place than speeding, jumping a red light, not paying attention, using my phone, shouting at the kids. Indeed the number of people who 'tot up' to 12 pts suggests that even when sitting on 9pts a lot of people still think that the chance of detection is tiny - even if the consequences are high.

The fallacy is that what he did only involved a momentary lapse of concentration. The thing is, if he'd been driving correctly otherwise, a momentary lapse of concentration wouldn't have resulted in him clipping the back wheel of a cyclist and killing her.

well possibly, although without listening to the facts of the case that may only be speculation. The fact he plead not guilty suggest he (or his lawyer) thought he might convince the jury that there was at least some doubt that it was just an accident.

The thing is, the very act of hitting a cyclist ought to be evidence enough in itself of reckless driving (or whatever the next step up is from careless - can't be bothered to search right now).

They go:

Inconsiderate < Careless (below the standard expected) < Dangerous ([u]far[/u] below the standard expected)

You may be right, but this decision is not the Sheriff's, it is the Crown's (although in some cases the Judge/Jury may convict on the less serious charge).

It should be such a long way below the standard of driving of somebody driving properly that it's not possible for it to just be careless.

I think this is the crux of the issue. "Cyclists" believe that every accident involving a car must be the drivers fault and must be dangerous***. I think the use of the word Dangerous is unhelpful in the charge as clearly any circumstances resulting in a collision are dangerous and it is difficult to imagine in lay terms a better word to describe driving that results in death. However Dangerous Driving in the law has a specific meaning which I don't think most cyclists agree with, especially on the interpretation of 'far below the standard of a careful and competent driver'. It might be clearer and have better case law to define it if we saw more Careless or Dangerous prosecutions when there were no casualties. I think there is also a tendency to think that Careless is the least significant - but actually its the middle of three offences.

* well nobody sane
** obviously like all STW drivers my own driving is faultless
*** sweeping generalisation of course

The fact he plead not guilty suggest he (or his lawyer) thought he might convince the jury that there was at least some doubt that it was just an accident.

So I'm speculating here, but it's based on lots of experience of cycling on the roads, hearing reports of other people's incidents and nowadays watching video clips. The evidence available would suggest that the likelihood is he wasn't giving the cyclist enough space and considers it an accident that he clipped her rather than just closely missing her. Only an accident on the basis that his poor standard of driving led to the situation where a slight misjudgement killed somebody. You tell me that that speculation isn't the most likely scenario...

You may be right, but this decision is not the Sheriff's, it is the Crown's (although in some cases the Judge/Jury may convict on the less serious charge).

That is true for the charge brought in front of the court. However whilst this case was in Scotland where they don't appear to have the same system of tariffs (apologies I really do know very little about Scottish law) in England and Wales the judge gets to decide just how bad the careless driving was - IIRC there are 3 seperate levels they can place it in from only just unacceptable up to just short of dangerous. Comparing the sentence to what I remember of the English tariffs, the Sheriff has put this offence at the lowest level. No surprises there, as pretty much every case I've looked at in England and Wales has used the lowest tariff level, despite the fact that in almost all cases killing a cyclist (a vulnerable road user) ought to be enough by itself to raise the level - you don't have to have studied law to see that the judges aren't applying the law in the way they're supposed to.

"Cyclists" believe that every accident involving a car must be the drivers fault and must be dangerous

The thing is, the vast majority of them are. The only way most incidents aren't far below the standard of a competent driver is because the standard used is actually that of an average driver rather than a competent one. I mean look at the CyclingGaz case posted on here recently where the van overtakes* a cyclist and immediately turns left on them (* overtakes not being strictly accurate as that would imply they'd actually completed the pass). Anybody sane would consider that to be far below the standard of a competent driver, but apparently not.

thecrookofdevon - Member

The helmet issue is a nonsense. Is there any evidence that wearing a helmet would have saved the poor woman's life?

+1 Are we going to be expected to have to wear a helmet in order to bring negligent or dangerous drivers the correct level of justice now?

Even if you put aside the helmet debate, rotational injuries and drivers giving helmetless riders a wider berth etc etc, everyone knows that there are accidents/impacts that are totally unsurvivable whether you have a helmet on or not (or whether it is fitted/done up properly of course...) I wear one, but only for the possibility that I might hit my head at the 'right' velocity that would harm or kill me without a helmet, and would be survivable with that little bit of energy absorbtion from having an inch of expanded poystyrene in the way. Of all the dozens of spills and crashes I have had over the years, only three would have been any different (although one could have been fatal or 'life changing') without a helmet on, and all were off road and self-induced/no other riders involved anyway.

Aracer,

In terms of your speculation - it apparently took place at a junction so I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'overtaking' assumption in this case, although I accept that if you want to do some wild internet guessing then its usually a good start.

Look at the sentencing guidelines used in England -

It is within the range of the both the lowest class of careless driving (momentary inattention) and the middle class (other cases) (p15) so other that the fact this was a second offence its not that surprising. Bear in mind that the Sheriff asked for pre-sentencing reports so has 'professional opinion' on various things like remorse, accepting responsibility, the mental health issues alluded to...

Now look at the Appendix which gives examples of the difference between dangerous and careless. Broadly speaking I would say they are split into "knowingly drove like a tit" and "drove like most other people in blind ignorance of the world around them"! You might not agree with those classifications - but you can't blame the Judges for following the guidance they are given! Although Scottish judges (including Sheriffs) dont have guidelines on sentencing / tariffs they will have similar guidance or training on what is Dangerous v's Careless - however in this case the decision appears to have been made by the Procurator Fiscal.

I don't know why all bans over say 6 months don't automatically need an extended retest. However I stick by my earlier comment that draconian penalties for those who kill are not an effective way to reduce deaths. Far better to to penalise those who were lucky enough not to cause serious harm to help learn. Given how many people still use phones when driving you'd need a lot more people on the roads to enforce it all though.

it apparently took place at a junction so I don't necessarily subscribe to the 'overtaking' assumption in this case

I don't think I mentioned overtaking did I? Driving too close also includes when crossing at junctions - given it appears he only clipped her back wheel then it seems most of the usual idiotic behaviour by drivers at junctions is ruled out so thinking he was clear of her when he wasn't remains the most likely scenario. The point remains that if driving properly he should have been nowhere near her, not giving her a close buzz.

other that the fact this was a second offence its not that surprising

So what you're suggesting is that this would have been an appropriate sentence if it was a first offence. I'm not going to argue with you there.

However I stick by my earlier comment that draconian penalties for those who kill are not an effective way to reduce deaths. Far better to to penalise those who were lucky enough not to cause serious harm to help learn.

I agree with you in theory - after all I've already made the argument that this chap's driving probably wasn't very different from that which is commonplace and it's the idea that it's acceptable to put your ton of metal anywhere near a cyclist which is unacceptable. The trouble is, there doesn't appear to be any will to prosecute drivers for doing the things which really are dangerous - after all if you complain about somebody getting too close then the police will just shrug their shoulders because they didn't actually hit you. Therefore we're just left with the cases where drivers do hit the cyclists.

Sheriff Scott is an ill informed ****. Come for me you ****.

The guy looks like a ****ing knuckledragger.
Either dangerously incompetent behind the wheel, or wilfully murderous.

Just seen this from the CTC, in relation to this.

[url= http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/demand-proper-sentence-for-driver-who-killed-twice ]http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/demand-proper-sentence-for-driver-who-killed-twice[/url]

It includes a draft letter addressed to the Lord Advocate requesting that the sentence be reviewed, as per the family's wishes.

Just signed this ^^

Also done. Given the recent E Way incident I am getting very concerned about the apparent disregard for the the value of a cyclists life. Things need to change.

Good news?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22730808

Good news, but he should be doing time IMO.