There was a thread a year ago about a cyclist killed in Fife.
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/another-cyclist-killed-this-time-in-fife
The driver convicted today of causing death by dangerous driving. Was using her phone at time of crash and deleted the call record afterwards.
Julie Watson, 36, deleted a record of the call and made a 999 call in a bid to summon emergency services after she collided with Alistair Speed.The mother-of-two was found guilty of causing the death of Mr Speed, 49, on the A91 road between Strathmiglo and Gateside, in Fife, on September 5 in 2013 by dangerous driving.
She was also convicted of attempting to defeat the ends of justice by deleting a record of a call she made just before the 999 call.
Remanded in custody until sentence so appears to be getting the jail.
Good.
Good to hear.
Good.
Progress
I'll bid 6 months clinky and a 1 year ban.
death by dangerous driving is a bit more than that isn't it - esp with aggravating factors like the lying and tampering with phone records ?
4 years, no chance of HDC.
I'll bid 6 months clinky and a 1 year ban.
Not in England,no idea about Scotland though?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/
It'll be bugger all for killing the guy and years for what she did to try and evade justice.
It's 2 yr ban as a minimum. It will be a Level 3 offence, with sentencing guidelines between 2 and 5 years. Sentencing for the offence of defeating the ends of justice will be on top but may run consecutively.
She's going down for 3 years.
Is Scots law the same?
I'm just being excessively cynical. It looks like the minimum in E&W is 2 years clinky and a 2 year ban, presumably Scotland is the same or similar? I'm not expecting much more than the minimum though, whatever aggravating factors - the victim being a cyclist usually seems to be some sort of defence rather than the aggravating factor it should be (due to being a vulnerable road user).
Wow. She's 36, apparently.
Must have had a hard paper round.
[img] 
[/img]
That's just what they all look like up north...
[quote=hopeychondriact ]That's just what they all look like up north...
Hence why we shag sheep
Wow. She's 36, apparently.Must have had a [s]hard paper[/s] milk round in Chernobyl.
Fify
Hey hey! Leave the poor sheep out of it.
Least sheep get shaved I suppose. :d
Jeez, insulting a woman on the basis of looks?
Lets see your mugshots then.
What cliches you are.
No winners here. Riders family devastated. Drivers kids left motherless while she's in clink.
Must have had a hard paper round.
Spat my tea out reading that one. 😆
I'd like to see this case publicised more widely to make sure drivers know there are consequences...
Deleting the phone record is despicable...
No winners here. Riders family devastated. Drivers kids left motherless while she's in clink.
^this.
Its the attempt to avoid blame THEN the helping her victim bit.
One of these people that you hope that anyone you care about never encounters.
the real problem is the low value given to vulnerable road users , death on the road is peculiar, its almost as if its expected ,however so caused ,and penalties for being the guilty are depressingly lenient, --it infuriates me every day the amount of tossers i see talking on their phones, writing texts etc--instant ban is needed-no second chance , straight ban of six months-would soon see a change in behaviour -and penalties for the above type of case should be sterner...
I don't think the jail sentences help. Should be long or life driving ban with mandatory jail time for driving when banned (and car being driven seized and destroyed - since unlikely to be in name of banned person and would discourage loan of car to banned drivers).
Good.
I don't think the jail sentences help.
I disagree. She took a conscious decision to drive dangerously and as a result killed someone. Jail time is appropriate.
Using a phone is more dangerous than driving at the drink drive limit. The big question is why using a hand held mobile is 3pts and not an instant ban(hands free are almost as bad just not illegal).
Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm
I think jail sentence is appropriate, a life has been taken.
for "careless" driving possibly, for dangerous (which seems to be a pretty rare thing to be convicted of) it is and should imo be a deterrent to doing stupid dangerous things whist driving. Dangerous is wilfully doing something that will endanger other people, it's not "a brief lapse of concentration"* so shouldn't be treated as such.I don't think the jail sentences help.
iirc normally served concurrently so back to driving on release.E&W is 2 years clinky and a 2 year ban,
*which seems to be the standard defence even when someone is being wilfully dangerous
Toppers and broess +1
There is no punishment that can bring the cyclist back, but drivers need to be deterred from being a dick
Agreed. Nothing good here, no winners.
But jail is sadly probably appropriate for someone who acted as she seems to have.
iirc normally served concurrently so back to driving on release.
They may not have fixed this in Scotland, but IIRC in E&W the law was changed so you don't serve a driving ban whilst locked up (ISTR there's still something funny about it because release date isn't fixed when you're sent down due to parole and stuff, so setting the start date of the ban is awkward).
again iirc it was all agreed on but a bureaucratic **** up meant it wasn't actually implementedbut IIRC in E&W the law was changed
edit yeah here we go [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/when-is-law-not-law-when-no-one.html ]section 137[/url] afaik still not implemented
It's 2 yr ban as a minimum. It will be a Level 3 offence, with sentencing guidelines between 2 and 5 years.
Am I right in thinking these are usually concurrent?
So she'll basically be banned from driving while she is locked up? 😕
Like simons_nicolai-uk I'm not entirely convinced that jail sentences are a good deterrent in these cases, but I've never got my head around why we let these people EVER drive again?
They have demonstrated, with fatal consequences, that they cannot be trusted to safely operate a several ton machine at high speed.
Why do we give them another go in a year or two?
Oh dear. Some good and some petty comments here.
You do wish there was a way of undergoing community service as a paper round by bike, or some such, travelling along the same road she'd killed the poor fella. Not even going into the Bez theme of how mandatory licence for the cyclist would have helped one iota..
Two years means a year in Jail,possibly less and then release,again with an ankle support from the house of Windsor. So she will still be banned.
the Bez theme of how mandatory licence for the cyclist would have helped one iota..
This one?
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/them-and-theirs/
I was coincidentally just reading that very article.
Perhaps if she had thought of that before she did it this wouldn't have happened.No winners here. Riders family devastated. [b]Drivers kids left motherless while she's in clink[/b].
I don't think jail sentences help because I don't think they're an effective deterrent. With good reason, no one thinks it will happen to them (nearly everyone thinks they're a better than average driver which simply can't be possible). And locking people up is expensive, and wrecks families.
Taking licences away much more regularly might well be an effective deterrent. More frequent points for speeding etc, no exceptional hardship defence (which sees people with ridiculous numbers of points avoiding bans). Bans of 6months, year, two years for frequent speeders etc etc
If she gets 4 years or more she'll be ineligable for HDC (ankle support as Duckman said)
4 years & over is a parole sentence.
I don't think jail sentences help because I don't think they're an effective deterrent.
It's not a deterrent until youv'e been to jail thats for sure, after that who knows. I know people who've been to jail for DBDD on a 1st offence, don't know of any whov'e been back, even for any other offences.
Taking licences away much more regularly might well be an effective deterrent
This. Just short, simple bans. You get -say - 9 points you get a 2 week ban and some sort of awareness course. No hardship defence at all. If you and your family suffer, that's the consequence of your action, you pay for taxis, beg lifts, take a couple of weeks unpaid leave if you can't get to work or do your job.
One month for a second ban within two years, and a compulsory retest.
One of the best things I've seen recently was one of these "my kids a useless driver" programmes. The lad cut up a cyclist. Part of his "re-education" was to get a close pass from a car while cycling (done on what looked like a private road on a country estate). The lad went apeshit about the how scary and dangerous it was.
That's another option for restorative justice...
I don't think jail sentences help because I don't think they're an effective deterrent.
Debatable. But they are an effective punishment. That's enough for me in this case.
"But they're an effective punishment"
An eye for an eye and all that. I think that' is a poor reason todo it. It satisfies our base instincts, that's all. Jail should be about protecting the public - where there is a real risk the miscreant will put others at harm again. Punishment is better carried out through the remove bet of privilege. (I know jail is the removal of freedom but...).
For people who aren't a danger then take time - public works, significant fines, removal of assets. Now I do think that someone who has driven whilst banned should be jailed - t.hey are a danger
What would protect more than jail is life ban - and that's what doesn't happen. It would for a pilot or a train driver or a doctor But not a driver.
